On Point blog, page 107 of 120
Introducing Evidence Doesn’t Waive Challenge to Admissibility Where Trial Court Ruled Evidence Admissible on Motion In Limine
State v. Gary M.B., 2004 WI 33, affirming 2003 WI App 72, 261 Wis. 2d 811, 661 N.W.2d 435
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue: Whether defendant’s introduction of his/ her prior criminal record, after objection to its admissibility was overruled, waived the objection.
Holding:
¶11. Under the doctrine of strategic waiver, also known as invited error,
Waiver of Issue: Judicial Intervention, § 906.14
State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148, 266 Wis. 2d 168, 667 N.W.2d 800
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin
Issue/Holding:
¶34 Subsection (3) of § 906.14 authorizes objections, and it “defers the requirement of a timely objection . . . to the next available opportunity when the jury is not present.” Id. R202. This subsection appears to focus more on situations where the judge questions witnesses in front of a jury than where a judge questions a witness in a bench trial or outside the presence of a jury.¶35 Given the explicit authority to object to a judge’s action,
Issue-Preservation: Sufficiency of Evidence – Trial-Level Challenge Unnecessary
State v. Obea S. Hayes, 2004 WI 80, affirming 2003 WI App 99, 264 Wis. 2d 377, 663 N.W.2d 351
For Hayes: Philip J. Brehm
Issue: Whether challenge to sufficiency of evidence must be raised during trial in order to preserve the right to raise the challenge on appeal.
Holding: State v. Gomez, 179 Wis. 2d 400, 507 N.W.2d 378 (Ct.
Appellate Procedure – Review of Discretion Based on Mistaken View of Law
State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, reversing unpublished opinion
For Cesar G.: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶46. In contrast to the court of appeals, we view the circuit court’s statement that it was not convinced it had the statutory authority to stay the sex registration requirement as persuasive that it made its decision based on an incorrect view of the law.
Review: Administrative Rule
WCCD v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, affirming 2003 WI App 76, 263 Wis. 2d 370, 661 N.W.2d 858
Issue/Holding:
¶5. The central issue in this case is the validity of § NR 10.01(1)(h).5 A court may declare an administrative rule invalid “if it finds that it violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency or was promulgated without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.”
Standards of Review: Administrative Decisions – Certiorari – Revocation of Probation – Right to Counsel
State ex rel. Peter D. Griffin v. Smith / State ex rel. Micah E. Glenn v. Litscher, 2004 WI 36, on certification
For Griffin and Glenn: Nathaniel Cade, Jr., State Bar Pro Bono Project
Issue/Holding: A new rule of equitable tolling for untimely certiorari petitions seeking review of revocation decisions is subject to the retroactivity analysis adopted by State ex. rel.
Constitutional Nature of Right to Appeal
State ex rel. Richard A. Ford v. Holm, 2004 WI App 22, PFR filed 3/1/04
For Ford: James R. Troupis, State Bar Pro Bono Project
For Amicus (SPD): Marla Stephens, Director; Patricia K. Flood, First Asst.SPD
Issue/Holding:
¶2 A person convicted in Wisconsin of committing a crime has a constitutionally guaranteed right to appeal his or her conviction to this court. WIS.
Reconfinement After Revocation of Extended Supervision – Review under § 809.30
State v. Christopher Swiams, 2004 WI App 217
For Swiams: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶4 The question presented by this appeal is whether persons sentenced to a bifurcated term of imprisonment whose extended supervision is revoked may seek relief under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.30 from the trial court’s reconfinement order. We hold that they may.
Review of reconfinement has been a sticking point for some time,
Appellate Procedure: Finality of Order — Special Proceeding
State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed on other grounds, 2005 WI 110
For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow
Issue/Holding: ¶10, n. 3: Dawn originally commenced this appeal by filing a petition for leave to appeal a nonfinal order. However, we determined that the order was final because it concluded a special proceeding with respect to the confidentiality privilege held by Dawn on behalf of Kirsten.
Criminal Appeals, Duties of Counsel, Generally
State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Evans: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding:
¶30. During postconviction proceedings, a defendant must choose between being represented by the SPD, proceeding pro se, or securing private representation. State v. Redmond, 203 Wis. 2d 13, 19, 552 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1996). A defendant does not have the right to hybrid representation on appeal.