On Point blog, page 32 of 49
Search & Seizure: PBT Probable Cause; PBT Evidence: Admissibility without DOT Certification
State v. Christopher J. Felton, 2012 WI App 114 (recommended for publication); case activity
Search & Seizure – PBT – Probable Cause
Notwithstanding that Felton passed field sobriety tests, probable cause existed to administer a preliminary breath test.
¶8 This section does not require that the officer have probable cause to arrest a driver for drunk driving before giving that driver a preliminary-breath test.
Miranda-Edwards Rule – Invocation of Counsel, Suspect’s Initiation of Contact; Binding Authority – Overruled Court of Appeals Decision
State v. David W. Stevens, 2012 WI 97, affirming unpublished decision; case activity
Miranda-Edwards Rule – Invocation of Counsel, Initiation of Contact by Suspect
Where an in-custody suspect invokes his right to counsel and interrogation immediately ceases, but the suspect himself then initiates a request to continue the interrogation, the police may proceed with questioning if fresh Miranda warnings are given and validly waived.
Sufficiency of Evidence: Standard of Review – Possession with Intent to Deliver; Right to Jury Trial – Apprendi – Harmless Error
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2012 WI 91, reversing in part, affirming in part unpublished decision; case activity
Standard of Review: Sufficiency of Evidence
¶29 We understand Smith’s central argument regarding the standard of review on the evidentiary question to be summed up in the proposition that a jury verdict of guilt[9] must be reversed on appeal if “[t]he inferences that may be drawn from the circumstantial evidence are as consistent with innocence as with guilt.”
Confrontation – Expert Testimony
Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, 6/18/12, affirming People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125, 939 N.E. 268
A split Court (4-1-4) upholds against Confrontation objection, admissibility of expert testimony that a DNA profile, produced by a different lab, matched Williams’ profile. Because the rationale favoring admissibility doesn’t earn a clear majority of votes, the opinion should be approached with the following principle in mind,
Sex Offender Registration, § 973.048(1m): “Sexually Motivated” Conduct
State v. Willie H. Jackson, 2012 WI App 76 (recommended for publication); case activity
§ 973.048(1m) (2003-04) authorizes the sentencing court to require sex offender registration under § 301.45 for conviction of enumerated crimes, “if the court determines that the underlying conduct was sexually motivated as defined in s. 980.01(5)” and public protection would be advanced thereby. (“Sexually motivated,” as might be imagined, means that “sexual arousal or gratification”
Appellate Review – “Waiver” and “Forfeiture,” Generally
Best Price Plumbing, Inc. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2012 WI 44; case activity
¶37 n. [11]:
In State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶29, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, this court recognized that the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver” are often used interchangeably, but that the terms embody distinct legal concepts. Forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right,
Roselva Chaidez v. United States, USSC No. 11-820, cert granted 4/30/12
Question Presented (from cert petition):
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), this Court held that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation. The question presented is whether Padilla applies to persons whose convictions became final before its announcement.
State v. Courtney C. Beamon, 2011 WI App 131, rev. granted 4/25/12
court of appeals decision; for Beamon: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post
Elements, Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Instructions – Sufficiency of Proof – Harmless Error
Issues (from Beamon’s Petition for Review):
Is a jury instruction which describes the factual theory alleged to satisfy an element legally erroneous?
In a criminal case, are the instructions given the jury the law of the case against which the sufficiency of the evidence must be measured or,
Double Jeopardy – Mistrial over Objection – “Manifest Necessity”
State v. Levi Alexander Rodebaugh, 2011AP2659-CR, District 4, 4/5/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rodebaugh: Bryon J. Walker; case activity
Grant of mistrial was unsupported by “manifest necessity,” hence was an erroneous exercise of discretion, where the complainant failed to show for trial and couldn’t be quickly located. Retrial is therefore barred as a matter of double jeopardy:
¶9 After Rodebaugh’s jury was sworn and jeopardy attached,
Ineffective Assistance – Prejudice; Trial Court Exercise of Discretion – Over-Reliance on Party’s Submission
State v. Juan Angel Orengo, 2011AP137, District 1, 2/28/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Orengo: Robert R. Henak; case activity
Counsel’s failure to attempt severance, from a drug charge, of a felon-in-possession-of-weapon count, didn’t amount to ineffective assistance.
¶8 Wisconsin law recognizes that guns and drug dealers go together. See State v. Guy, 172 Wis. 2d 86,