On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA affirms OWI conviction at trial, finding that nontestifying witness’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial and defendant not subjected to custodial interrogation.
State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.
Police questioning of defendant while chained to a hospital bed was not an “interrogation”
State v. William Lester Jackson, 2018AP896-CR, District 1, 1/23/19, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jackson accidentally shot himself with a firearm that a friend left in his car and then drove himself to a hospital. A detective chained him to his bed because he needed to talk to Jackson but he also had to help with chaos in the ER due to other shootings that night. Two detective later questioned Jackson without Miranda warnings, and he admitted to being a felon in possession.
SCOW to address admissibility of deceased’s hearsay statements, whether Miranda warnings are required at John Doe hearings
State v. Peter J. Hanson, 2016AP2058-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 1/15/19; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (from the petition for review):
Whether the admission of hearsay statements of a defendant’s deceased wife inculpating him in murder violates his right to confrontation?
Whether trial counsel is ineffective in failing to move to suppress inculpatory statements that the defendant made at a John Doe hearing where he was in custody and not properly Mirandized?
State v. Brian I. Harris, 2014AP1767-CR, petition granted 4/6/16
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (from petition for review):
Is a defendant deprived of his constitutional right against self-incrimination and his rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution by the admission at trial in the state’s case-in chief of his unwarned custodial statements made in response to law enforcement’s asking for a statement?
Miranda – Exceptions – Booking Questions
State v. Joseph K. Bryant, 2001 WI App 41, 241 Wis. 2d 554, 624 N.W.2d 865
For Bryant: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the “routine booking question” exception to Miranda permitted questions about biographical data.
Holding: Miranda warnings need not precede routine questions that merely gather background biographical data in the booking process. ¶14. “To qualify for the application of the exception,
Miranda – Good-Faith Exception
State v. George W. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48
For Hindsley: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether a good-faith exception to Miranda should be recognized.
Holding: The court of appeals doesn’t have authority to articulate a good-faith exception to Miranda: “(It) is not the proper role of this court to create an exception to, or modify,