On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Ronell E. Harris, 2008 WI 15, affirming unpublished decision
For Harris: Ralph J. Sczygelskis

Issue/Holding: Various discovery and evidentiary violations amounted to harmless error, whether taken singly (¶¶41-59, ¶87-90) or cumulatively (¶¶109-113).Harmless error discussions are largely fact-specific, and this case is no exception. But it is noteworthy for its recognition that the “court has formulated the test for harmless or prejudicial error in a variety of way,” ¶42.

State v. Kevin M. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/4/08
For Champlain: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶37      Owner nonconsent, like other elements of criminal offenses, may be proved by circumstantial evidence. See Bohachef v. State, 50 Wis.  2d 694, 700-01, 185 N.W.2d 339 (1971). The test on review is whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,

State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208
For Doss: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding:

¶57      Next, we address Doss’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction under Wisconsin Statute § 943.20(1)(b). Doss correctly recites the elements the State was required to establish to obtain a conviction: that (1) she had possession of money as a result of her position as a personal representative of her father’s estate;

State v. Elizabeth A. White, 2008 WI App 96
For White: T Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Jurisdiction attaches to state’s appeal from denial of reconsideration of an oral ruling dismissing a count, ¶7 n. 5:

The State appeals from the written order denying the motion for reconsideration. White, citing Ver Hagen v. Gibbons, 55 Wis. 2d 21, 25,

Portage Daily Register v. Columbia Co. Sh. Dept., 2008 WI App 30

Issue/Holding:

¶8        We will generally not consider issues that are moot on appeal. See Hernandez v. Allen, 2005 WI App 247, ¶10, 288 Wis. 2d 111, 707 N.W.2d 557. However, the present appeal is not moot because our ruling will have the practical effect of determining the Register’s right to recover damages and fees under Wis.

State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, affirming 2006 WI App 188
For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶20      A prior interpretation of a statute is applied when courts subsequently consider the same statute. Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67, ¶41, 281 Wis. 2d 300, 697 N.W.2d 417. The court may overturn a prior interpretation of a statute when it has been shown “not only that [the previous decision] was mistaken but also that it was objectively wrong,

State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision
For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski

Issue/Holding

¶42      … (S)tructural error [is] a “defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991); State v. Shirley E.

State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶47      In determining whether a constitutional error is harmless, the inquiry is as follows: “‘Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?’” State v. Harvey,

State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Erroneous comments on pre-Miranda silence were harmless, given both infrequency of occurrence and also absence of impact on the defendant’s decision to testify (which then properly exposed him to such comment), ¶¶49-52.

State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, affirming 2006 WI App 188
For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶14 n. 4:

The State contends that Grady waived the issues presented. Grady did not waive the issues presented because he filed a postconviction motion pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.30(2)(h). Filing a postconviction motion is a timely means of raising an alleged error by the circuit court during sentencing.