On Point: K. Standards of Review

State v. Daniel K. Rogers, 2012AP186-CR, District 4, 4/17/14; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The defendant, having been charged with sexual assault and released on bond, allegedly choked his victim to make her to lie on his behalf at trial. The circuit court admitted this as § 904.04(2) “other acts” evidence at the sexual assault trial, and the COA affirmed because the evidence showed consciousness of guilt.

State v. Venceremos Crump, 2013AP2163-CR, District 1, 3/18/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court articulated its reasons for the sentence imposed on Crump as required by State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, ¶17, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, in light of the court’s comments in its order denying Crump’s postconviction motion, where it explicitly addressed the three primary sentencing factors and applied those factors to the facts of Crump’s case.

State v. Daniel M. Hirsch, 2014 WI App 39; case activity

The equal protection clause isn’t violated by § 343.307(1)(d)‘s differing treatment of Wisconsin and out-of-state” zero tolerance” OWI offenses (which penalize drivers under the legal drinking age who drive with any alcohol concentration).

Hirsch had two prior driver’s license suspensions for violation Illinois’s zero tolerance law. Under § 343.307(1)(d),

State v. Francisco Luis Canales, 2013AP1435-CR, District 1, 3/11/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Though the state violated its discovery obligation by failing to disclose multiple computer-aided dispatch (CAD) reports describing 9-1-1 calls regarding the incident, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Canales’s motion for mistrial after the discovery violation came to light.

A mistrial is appropriate only when there is a “manifest necessity,” for “the law prefers less drastic alternatives,

State v. Tammy S. Cole, 2013AP947-CR, District 4, 2/27/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The trial court did not err in declining to instruct on second-degree reckless homicide or homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon, as Cole requested at her trial on one count of first degree intentional homicide for shooting Evans, her boyfriend:

¶14      The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to Cole does not support submission of these lesser-included offenses.

Sawyer County v. Maurice J. Corbin, 2013AP650; 1/22/14; District 3 (one-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity

 This is an odd little case with some interesting potential. In 2004, Corbine was arrested for OWI and refused to submit to a chemical blood test under implied consent law. Supposedly Corbine received a “notice of intent to revoke operating privilege” but failed to request a refusal hearing, so the court entered default judgment revoking his license.

Here’s an issue in search of a published decision.  In 2011, Wisconsin amended Wis. Stat § 907.02 to require circuit courts to apply the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony. Thus far, no Wisconsin appellate court has interpreted and applied the new § 907.02, so we don’t know the standard for reviewing circuit court decisions pursuant to the statute.  The old test for the admission/exclusion of expert testimony wasn’t too complicated,

Polk County  Human Services Dep’t v. Boe H., 2013AP1719, District 3, 1/14/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This appeal turns on the court of appeals’ application of the law of the case doctrine,  so it’s necessary to recap some procedural history.

After a jury found Boe mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous under the “fifth standard”, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.e, the circuit court committed him to the DHS for 6 months.  

State v. Jesse J. Delebreau, 2014 WI App 21, petition for review granted, 5/23/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 55; case activity

You remember State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, 332 Wis. 2d 620, 796 N.W.2d 741? That’s the one that considered whether Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009),

State v. Mark K. Schrick, 2013AP1166-CR, District 4, 12/27/13 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Actually, this case concerns more than just dentures.  A jury convicted Schrick of operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration in violation of §346.63(1)(b). On appeal, Schrick challenged (1) the trial court’s decision to deny his motion for a directed verdict, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, and (3)  a jury instruction saying that by statute the administered breath test was considered accurate.