On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Demian Hyden McDermott, 2012 WI App 14 (recommended for publication); for McDermott: Robert R. Henak, Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity

¶9 n. 2:

McDermott complains that the circuit court “erroneously exercised its discretion by its wholesale adoption of the State’s brief as its decision.”  (Most capitalization omitted.)  The sum total of the circuit court’s analysis in denying McDermott’s sentence-modification motion without first holding an evidentiary hearing is:  “For all of the reasons set forth in the State’s excellent brief,

State v. Demian Hyden McDermott, 2012 WI App 14 (recommended for publication); for McDermott: Robert R. Henak, Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity

Sentencing Review – New Factor – Assistance to Law Enforcement 

McDermott, convicted in 1991 of first-degree intentional homicide, ptac with a parole eligibility date of 35 years, seeks new-factor-based modification of his PED on the ground “he helped law enforcement by participating in prison programs designed to dissuade youth from crime.”

State v. Cedric O Clacks, 2011AP338-CR, District 4, 12/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clacks: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to prove contested, fourth element of identity theft (intentional representation user of personal identification document of another authorized to use it), § 943.201(2)(a) as party to the crime.

¶15      Specifically, Clacks contends that handing the credit card to a sales clerk to make a purchase and signing the electronic credit card slip cannot,

State v. Brent T. Novy, 2012 WI App 10 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 6/13/12; for Novy: Joseph George Easton; case activity

Rebuttal – Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation 

Expert witness testimony, excluded from the State’s case-in-chief as a sanction failure to identify the witness during discovery, was admissible on rebuttal to attack the defendant’s testimony after he testified.

State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2012 WI App 2 (recommended for publication), reissued after initial decision withdrawn; for Prineas: Robert R. Henak; case activity; prior history: State v. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, 316 Wis. 2d 414, 766 NW.2d 206

Evidence – Prior Inconsistent Statements 

Evidence of complainant KAC’s statements made during an alleged sexual assault were admissible as prior inconsistent statements,

State v. John R. Nelson, 2011AP125-CR, District 2, 12/7/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nelson: John A. Nelson; case activity

The officer’s observation that Nelson’s vehicle intruded “somewhat into the intersection” before stopping provided reasonable suspicion for a stop-sign violation, § 346.46(1). The stop wasn’t unnecessarily prolonged by summoning a drug dog while the officer ran record checks and issued a warning ticket.

Nielsen sanction after show cause (summary order, not citable), on remand from State v. Nielsen, 2011 WI 94

Sanction for Incomplete Brief Appendix 

The appellant’s brief argued that the circuit court failed to fulfill the mandate articulated in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, to explain the rationale for the particular sentence imposed.

on review of unpublished decision; for Smith: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Sufficiency of Evidence (Possession with Intent to Deliver) – Circumstantial Evidence Standard of Review / 
Stipulation (Offense Element) – Right to Jury Trial

Issues (from Smith’s PFR): 

1. The Trial Evidence Was Insufficient to Support Smith’s Conviction of Possessing a Controlled Substance (THC) With Intent to Deliver,

City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,

Questions Presented (from Scotusblog): 

1) Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court’s precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel’s statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on this jury at all?

2) Did the Seventh Circuit violate Mr.