On Point: K. Standards of Review

State v. Shantell T. Harbor, 2011 WI 28, affirming unpublished decision; for Harbor: Joseph E. Redding; case activity

Sentence Modification – New Factor

The “new factor” test for sentence modification has split into “two divergent lines of cases”: Rosado v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 280, 288, 234 N.W.2d 69 (1975) (fact(s) highly relevant to, but not brought out at, 

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. Brad E. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, reversing 2010 WI App  11; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee; amicus: Colleen D. Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Forbush’s 6th amendment right to counsel had already attached – because a criminal complaint had been filed – and he had retained counsel before officers began interrogating him on that charge in the absence of his attorney.

State v. Allen L. Resch, 2010AP2321-CR, District 2, 4/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Resch: Christopher Lee Wiesmueller, Corinne N. Wiesmueller; case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported investigatory stop for possible burglary, where vehicle was parked in private business parking lot at 2:26 a.m., with engine running and lights off.

¶13      Specifically, as the trial court indicated, the time of day is an important factor in determining whether a law enforcement officer had a reasonable suspicion. 

Adam Martine v. Quentin J. Williams, 2011 WI App 68 (recommended for publication); case activity

¶13      Prior to last year, this court applied a general rule regarding court of appeals’ cases reversed by the supreme court that “holdings not specifically reversed on appeal retain precedential value.”  Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 78, ¶44, 326 Wis. 2d 729, 786 N.W.2d 78 (citation omitted).  

State v. Michael L. Gengler, 2010AP1999, District 2, 4/6/11

court of appeals (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

¶6        The trial court determined that the complaint and the amended complaint were proper, stating,

The complaint was duly sworn on oath.  The complaint was signed and filed by an assistant district attorney as prescribed by WIS. STAT. § 968.02(1).  The complaint alleges multiple violations of WIS.

Richardson v. Henderson, 2010AP1765, District 2, 3/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity

¶7, n.4:

Our supreme court has held that “when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.”  Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co.

City of Shawano v. Darlene F. Sense, 2010AP2193-FT, District 3, 2/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity; Memo Br.; Memo Resp.; Memo Reply

¶10      As a final matter, we address certain deficiencies in Sense’s appellate brief.  First, Sense’s repeated references to “appellant” and “respondent” throughout her brief violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.19(1)(i), which requires reference to the parties by name,

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3; prior history: 2007 WI 26; for Jensen: Terry W. Rose, Christopher William Rose, Michael D. Cicchini; case activity; (Jensen BiC not posted); State Resp.; Jensen Reply

Confrontation – Generally

The Confrontation Clause regulates testimonial statements only, such that nontestimonial statements are excludable only under hearsay and other evidence-rule ¶¶22-26,

State v. Bradley A. Brandsma, 2010AP1429-CR , District 4, 12/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brandsma: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity; Brandsma BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Trial courts have “very broad discretion” under § 972.12 to allow a deliberating jury to separate overnight before returning to resume deliberations; court of appeals rejects argument under state and federal constitutions “a circuit court should presume that any separation of a jury renders that jury impartial in light of rapidly changing modes and content of publicly available information,”