On Point blog, page 49 of 49
Arrest — Warrant, Based on Criminal Complaint — Standard of Review
State v. Joel L. Ritchie, 2000 WI App 136, 237 Wis.2d 664, 614 N.W.2d 837
For Ritchie: Steven G. Bauer
Issue: What is the standard of review for an arrest warrant based on a criminal complaint?
Holding: Although review of probable cause to support a complaint is independent, review of probable cause to support an arrest warrant based on a complaint is greatly deferential (same as review of a search warrant).
§ 943.32, Armed Robbery – sufficiency of evidence
State v. Keith Jones, 228 Wis.2d 593, 598 N.W.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Jones: Edward J. Hunt
Holding: In the course of making their get-away, Jones’s shoplifting codefendant allegedly threatened Shogren, a pursuing guard. Notwithstanding the codefendant’s acquittal, Jones’s conviction for armed robbery is sustained against a sufficiency of evidence challenge.
Here, there was sufficient evidence to convict Jones. That the jury acquitted Patterson does not necessarily mean that it discounted Shogren’s testimony.
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Newly Discovered Evidence – Recantation
State v. Dennis J. Kivioja, 225 Wis.2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999), on certification
For Kivioja: Mark G. Sukowaty.
Issue/Holding: Kivioja pleaded guilty after his codefendant, Stehle, implicated him in a string of burglaries. Following his own sentencing and prior to Kivioja’s, Stehle recanted and Kivioja moved to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing; the court of appeals certified the appeal,
Trial Court Finding that Proffered Newly Discovered Evidence “Incredible”
State v. Robert Carnemolla, 229 Wis.2d 648, 600 N.W.2d 236 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carnemolla: Robert T. Ruth
Issue/Holding: No error found in trial court’s credibility-bound denial of new trial based on newly discovered evidence claim:
In the instant case, the trial court found Sautier to be “incredible.” It also found “that a jury would [not] find []his testimony credible.” Under McCallum,
Binding Authority — Retroactivity — Statute Declared Unconstitutional
State v. Paul R. Benzel, 220 Wis. 2d 588, 583 N.W.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1998)
Pro se
Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Hall, 207 Wis.2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), that the drug tax, § 139.95, is unconstitutional applies retroactively: “failure to do so leads to the untenable result that a person stands convicted for conduct which has been held constitutionally immune from punishment. … (¶) A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an unconstitutional law.”
Consent — Independent Appellate Review — Voluntariness
State v. Jason Phillips, 209 Wis.2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573 (1997), reversing State v. Phillips, 209 Wis. 2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573
For Phillips: Arthur B. Nathan
Holding: Consent to search is question of constitutional (as opposed to historical) fact, and therefore subject to independent review on appeal. Defendant consented to warrantless search of bedroom: agents went to house to investigate drug transaction;