On Point blog, page 82 of 117
Evidence / IAC: Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA; Instruction: Recording Policy Interrogation; Impeachment: Prior Convictions
State v. Tarence A. Banks, 2010 WI App 107; for Banks: Scott D. Obernberger; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA – Ineffective Assistance
Prosecutorial use of Banks’ refusal, after arrest, to provide a warrantless DNA sample penalized him for exercising a constitutional right. Because no contemporaneous objection was made, the issue is raised as ineffective assistance of counsel,
Sufficiency of Evidence Review; Reverse Waiver; Sentence – Exercise of Discretion
State v. Carl Morgan, 2009AP74-CR, District III, 7/20/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Morgan: Ralph Sczygelski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Sufficiency of Evidence Review
Review of a denied motion for dismissal at the close of the prosecutor’s case-in-chief is waived where the defendant proceeds to put in a defense. All the evidence, including the defense presentation,
Post-Appeal Interest-of-Justice Litigation
State v. Dimitri Henley, 2010 WI 97, on certification; prior history: unpublished decision; related: disqualification litigation; for Henley: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, Byron Lichstein; Amicus: SPD
“Wisconsin circuit courts do not have the inherent authority to order a new trial in the interest of justice when a case is not before the court under a proper procedural mechanism,”
Serial Litigation Bar and No-Merit Procedure
State v. Aaron A. Allen, 2010 WI 89, affirming unpublished decision; for Allen: Robert R. Henak; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶4 We conclude, following Wis. Stat. § 974.06, that a defendant is not required to file a response to a no-merit report. This means he is not required to raise issues in response to a no-merit report.
Appeal from expired original commitment dismissed as moot
Manitowoc Co. HSD v. Tammy L.C., No. 2010AP118, District II, 7/14/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tammy L.C.: Matthew S. Pinix
Mootness – Discharge from Civil Commitment
Appeal of commitment order is dismissed as moot where appellant has been discharged and no extension sought.
Mootness raises a question of policy, not jurisdiction, and the court dismissed the appeal only after satisfying itself that the underlying issue isn’t recurrent but,
Binding Authority – Overruled Court of Appeals Decision
Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company, 2010 WI 78
¶42 We next address whether a court of appeals decision retains any precedential value when it is overruled by this court. We hold that when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.
A less obscure problem than you might think.
Interlocutory-Appeal Petition – Reviewability
Estate of Robert C. Parker v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WI 71
The supreme court is empowered to review denial of a petition for leave to appeal non-final order by the court of appeals.
¶45 The language of our case law is strong. We have stated that “[w]here the court of appeals denies permission to appeal from an order conceded by the parties to be nonfinal,
Jury Instructions: Exposing Child to Harmful Materials – Accident Defense – Waiver; Evidence: Richard A.P. – Corroboration Rule; Evidence: Character – Polygraph Offer; Voluntary Statement
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez, 2010 WI App 104, reversed, 2011 WI 63, see: this post; for Gonzalez: Kristin Anne Hodorowski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Jury Instructions – Exposing Child to Harmful Materials
The pattern instruction on exposing a child to harmful material, § 948.11(2)(a), accurately recites the elements, including scienter.
¶11 We agree with the trial court’s assessment that the pattern instruction accurately states the law.
Counsel – Substitution – Deaf Defendant
State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2010 WI 72, affirming unpublished opinion; for Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶43 The issues presented are first, whether Jones is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the circuit court wrongly denied his request for substitution of counsel, and second, whether he is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that such a denial violates rights guaranteed by the Wisconsin Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Counsel – Waiver – Self-Representation
State v. Rashaad A. Imani, 2010 WI 66, reversing 2009 WI App 98;habeas relief granted 6/22/16; for Imani: Basil M. Loeb; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶3 We conclude that the circuit court properly denied Imani’s motion to represent himself. First, we determine that Imani did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the right to counsel. The circuit court engaged Imani in two of the four lines of inquiry prescribed in Klessig and properly determined that Imani (1) did not make a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel,