On Point blog, page 1 of 1
De novo review of squad video supported finding of reasonable suspicion for traffic stop
State v. David L. Miller, 2017AP685-CR, 11/9/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Miller moved to suppress evidence of OWI on the grounds that the deputy who stopped him lacked reasonable suspicion. The suppression hearing involved two types of evidence: (1) the deputy’s testimony, and (2) the squad video. Miller asked the court of appeals to review the squad video de novo and to publish a decision saying that it is appropriate for appellate courts to do so. The court of appeals saw no need for publication. It found that the trial court denied suppression based on the deputy’s testimony and only used the video to assess his credibility.
Victim’s list of corrections not exculpatory; DA can file NOA; one appellate judge can deny motion to dismiss
State v. Karl W. Nichols, 2016AP88-CR, 3/20/17, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nichols was convicted, at trial, of a sexual assault of a four-year-old child; the child did not report the alleged assault to anyone until she was 10 years old. Nichols’s postconviction motion alleged that the state had failed to turn over a list, prepared by the child, of changes she wished to make to statements she made during her first forensic interview. The circuit court found the state had acted in bad faith in withholding the list, vacated Nichols’s conviction, and dismissed the charges with prejudice. The court of appeals now reverses and remands for the circuit court to consider Nichols’s sentence modification claim.
Conspiracy, § 939.31: “Overt Act”; Guilty Plea Factual Basis: de novo Review
State v. Eliseo Peralta, 2011 WI App 81(recommended for publication); for Peralta: Martin J. Pruhs; case activity
Conspiracy, § 939.31 – “Overt Act”
The “overt act” element of conspiracy, though it must go “beyond mere planning and agreement,” may be “virtually any act,” even if “insignificant,” ¶¶19-21. Thus, Peralta’s “communication to an undercover police detective that a large quantity of cocaine was ready for immediate delivery”
State v. Carl A. Lewis, Jr., 2010 WI App 52
court of appeals decision; ror Lewis: John T. Wasielewski; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review: Government Informant
¶16 Our discussion must begin, as it almost always does, with the standard of review. In deciding whether a person is a government informant or agent for purposes of this Sixth Amendment analysis, the determination regarding the relationship or understanding between the police and the informant is a factual determination.