On Point blog, page 3 of 5
TPR – Default Judgment as to Grounds – Sufficiency of Evidence; § 48.415(6) – Constitutional Challenge, Vagueness
Dane Co. DHS v. Sophia S., 2011AP2639, District 4, 2/23/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sophia S.: Faun M. Moses; case activity
Although the parent isn’t required to object to the sufficiency of evidence adduced in support of a default judgment on grounds for termination (the court rejecting the County’s argument on this point), there was a sufficient factual basis for the default.
Probation – Length of Term, Authority to Reduce
State v. Carl L. Dowdy, 2012 WI 12, affirming 2010 WI App 58; for Dowdy: Bryan J. Cahill; Amicus: Dustin Haskell (SPD), Robert Henak (WACDL); case activity
¶4 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 973.09(3)(a) does not grant a circuit court authority to reduce the length of probation. Rather, the plain language of § 973.09(3)(a) grants a circuit court authority only to “extend probation for a stated period”
TPR – Jury Instructions: Waiver of Issue; Ineffective Assistance
Heather T. C. v. Donald M. H., 2010AP467, District 2, 2/1/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald: Thomas K. Voss; case activity
Failure to object at trial waived appellate challenge to jury instructions and verdict form that combined two separate periods of abandonment as grounds for termination.
¶6 Failure to object to proposed jury instructions or verdicts at the instruction and verdict conference constitutes waiver of any error in the instructions or verdicts.
Juror Bias / Disqualification – Waiver of Issue: Use of Peremptory to Remove Juror
State v. Sharon A. Sellhausen, 2012 WI 5, reversing 2010 WI App 175; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity
The trial judge’s daughter-in-law was part of the jury pool; Sellhausen didn’t seek her removal for cause, but used a peremptory to strike her, which rendered harmless any possible error in the trial judge sua sponte failing to remove the juror for cause.
Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation Admissible on Rebuttal; Appellate Review: Omitted Transcript Presumed to Support Discretionary Trial Court Ruling; Sleeping Juror
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.
Notice of Alibi, § 971.23(8): DA Comment on Missing Witness; Appellate Procedure, Forfeiture of Issue: Sleeping Juror
State v. Forrest Andre Saunders, 2011 WI App 156 (recommended for publication); for Saunders: Robert A. Kagen; case activity
Notice of Alibi, § 971.23(8) – DA Comment on Missing Witness
“Alibi” merely refers to the fact that the defendant was elsewhere when the alleged occurred, ¶21, citing, State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, ¶13, 260 Wis. 2d 125, 659 N.W.2d 110.
Appellate Briefing – Forfeiture of Argument; Harmless Error
State v. Joshua P. O’Keefe, 2010AP2898-CR, District 4, 10/13/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for O’Keefe: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
¶7 O’Keefe contends that the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony of Bannach and Wanta in which they read to the jury the “Diagnosis” portion of the medical reports because O’Keefe was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the doctors who prepared the reports,
Appellate Procedure: “Waiver,” Distinguished from “Forfeiture” – Civil Case Necessity of Post-Trial Motion
J. K. v. Mark Peters, 2011 WI App 149 (recommended for publication); case activity
Appellate Procedure – “Waiver,” Distinguished from “Forfeiture”
¶1 n. 1:
In using the term “waiver,” we are aware of the recently decided case of State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, where our supreme court clarified the distinction between the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver.” See id.
Forfeiture of Issue, Generally
Kevin S. Dalka v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2010AP1428, District 2, 5/24/11
court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity
¶5 Dalka forfeited his right to appellate review of the order compelling him to accept the settlement offer. … It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that issues must be preserved in the circuit court. State v. Huebner, 2000 WI 59,
Reasonable Suspicion, Terry Stop: High-Crime Area, Ski Mask, et al.; Appellate Procedure: State’s Waiver of Argument
State v. Deshon C. Matthews, 2011 WI App 92 (recommended for publication); for Matthews: Paul G. Bonneson; case activity
Terry Stop – Reasonable Suspicion
Reasonable suspicion supported stop of Matthews, when police on patrol saw him wearing a ski mask and hoodie late at night in a high-crime area near a woman who was walking away form him and who appeared to be frightened.