On Point: C. Briefs/Appendices

State v. Ronald J. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, PFR filed 1/2/02
For Frank: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether testimonial references to an accepted offer to take a polygraph amounted to plain error.

Holding: Plain error, § 901.03(4), requires “obvious” error, and is reserved for likely violations of basic constitutional right: “Frank identified no basic constitutional right implicated, and he concedes, ‘[t]here is no evidence in the record as to the time separation,

State v. Carlos R. Delgado, 2002 WI App 38
For Delgado: Richard D. Martin, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it was incumbent upon defense counsel to police Ortiz’s testimony. This area of the law — what a therapist can and cannot testify to — is complicated. As a result, we hold that when an expert witness is permitted to testify in a sexual assault case as to common characteristics of sexual assault victims,

State v. Ronald J. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, PFR filed 1/2/02
For Frank: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether defendant waived review of objection to admissibility of misconduct evidence by entering into a “Wallerman” stipulation.

Holding: A stipulation under State v. Wallerman, 203 Wis. 2d 158, 552 N.W.2d 128 (Ct. App. 1996) (an element is conceded and the other-act isn’t admitted) waives the issue of admissibility:

¶5.

State ex rel. Michael J. Gendrich v. Litscher, 2001 WI App 163

Issue: Whether an unpublished decision may be cited for its “persuasive” value.

Holding: ¶7 n. 6:

We acknowledge that the cited order from the Seventh Circuit is an ‘unpublished opinion.’ However, the Seventh Circuit’s rule only prohibits citation of an ‘unpublished opinion’ as precedent in any federal court in that circuit. 7th Cir.

State v. Cherise A. Raflick, 2001 WI 129
For Raflik: Michael J. Fitzgerald, Dean A. Strang

Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case requires us to decide whether suppression is the proper remedy when a telephonic application for a search warrant is not recorded in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 968.12(3)(d)1, and when the factual basis for the warrant is reconstructed in an ex parte hearing after the warrant has been executed.

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether multiplicity claims were waived due to lack of objection until after trial. Holding: Although it isn’t necessary to raise a multiplicity challenge before trial, waiver attaches if “also omitted prior to the time the case was submitted to the jury.” ¶40.

The court’s holding seems to be informed by two notions.

State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman

Issue: Whether failure to cite relevant authority in support of appellate argument establishes waiver.

Holding:

¶11 … But Noble cites no authority requiring a tape recording, a transcript, or a signed statement to show the falsity of a statement.

State v. Cherise A. Raflick, 2001 WI 129
For Raflik: Michael J. Fitzgerald, Dean A. Strang

Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case requires us to decide whether suppression is the proper remedy when a telephonic application for a search warrant is not recorded in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 968.12(3)(d)1, and when the factual basis for the warrant is reconstructed in an ex parte hearing after the warrant has been executed.

State v. Michael Johnson, 2001 WI App 105
For Johnson: David R. Karpe

Issue: Whether defendant’s partially successful trial strategy of defending against two counts of possession of intent to deliver of claiming personal use on one count and denial of any knowledge of the substance in the second count judicially estopped him from arguing on appeal that the two counts are multiplicitous.

Holding:

¶10.

State v. Dale H. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606, reversing State v. Davidson, 222 Wis. 2d 233, 589 N.W.2d 038
For Davidson: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead

Issue: Whether objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument was waived by failing to move for mistrial.
Holding: Although Davidson objected to the closing argument, his failure to also move for mistrial waived the objection.