On Point blog, page 7 of 9
Right to Silence During Custodial Interrogation; Voluntariness – Police Promises
State v. Phillip K. Saeger, 2009AP2133-CR, District 2, 8/11/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Saeger: Michael J. Burr; BiC; Resp.
Right to Silence During Custodial Interrogation
Invocation of the right to silence during custodial interrogation must be clearly articulated, holding to that effect in State v. Ross, 203 Wis. 2d 66, 552 N.W.2d 428 (Ct.
State v. Elijah Arlanders Brock, No. 2009AP002120-CR, District I, 7/27/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brock: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Statement – Coercion
Threatened action against defendant’s girlfriend didn’t support suppression of his resulting statement:
¶11 Brock argues that Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 (1963), requires suppression of his statement. Lynumn held that threats that a mother’s children would be taken away from her unless she “cooperated” “must be deemed not voluntary,
Jury Instructions: Exposing Child to Harmful Materials – Accident Defense – Waiver; Evidence: Richard A.P. – Corroboration Rule; Evidence: Character – Polygraph Offer; Voluntary Statement
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez, 2010 WI App 104, reversed, 2011 WI 63, see: this post; for Gonzalez: Kristin Anne Hodorowski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Jury Instructions – Exposing Child to Harmful Materials
The pattern instruction on exposing a child to harmful material, § 948.11(2)(a), accurately recites the elements, including scienter.
¶11 We agree with the trial court’s assessment that the pattern instruction accurately states the law.
Appellate Review – Implicit Findings; Statement – Voluntariness
State v. Armando J. Castanada, No. 2009AP1438-CR, District I, 6/15/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Castanada: Jeremy C. Perri; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Appellate Review – Implicit Findings
¶30 The postconviction circuit court did not make any express findings as to the credibility of any of the witnesses’ testimony. However, as the State observes, when the circuit court does not make express findings,
Voluntary Statement: Following Voluntary Miranda Waiver
State v. Dionny L. Reynolds, 2010 WI App 56; for Reynolds: Russell D. Bohach; BiC; Resp. Br.
Statement voluntary, following multiple interviews while in custody on unrelated offense:
¶45 Balancing Reynolds’ personal characteristics against the totality of the police detectives’ conduct, we note, first and foremost, that Reynolds voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making his incriminating statement. Generally speaking,
Statements – Voluntariness – Police Deception/Promises – Informing of Potential Benefits of Cooperation not Improper
State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell
Issue/Holding:
¶29 Berggren also argues that his statements were induced by promises of probation and treatment. This amounts to an argument that his statements were not voluntarily given. He contends that the detective questioning him conveyed: “the belief that simple possession of child pornography photos would result in a probation disposition”;
Statements – Voluntariness – Post-Stress Test (“Honesty Testing”) Statement
State v. Keith A. Davis, 2008 WI 71, on Certification
For Davis: Chris A. Gramstrup
Issue/Holding:
¶38 In the case at hand, we conclude, as did the circuit court, that the defendant’s statement was voluntary. The record contains no evidence that would give rise to any concerns regarding his personal characteristics. Davis, at the time this occurred, was 43 years old. While the defendant’s brief indicates that Davis only possesses a middle school level education,
Involuntary Statement – Derivative Evidence – Admissibility of Subsequent Statement
State v. Charles W. Mark, 2008 WI App 44; on appeal following remand in State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding1:
¶20 When an individual has given an involuntary statement, a subsequent statement is also considered involuntary unless it can be “separated from the circumstances surrounding” the earlier statement by a “break in the stream of events,” between the first statement to the second,
Involuntary Statement (Due to Immunity Grant) – Derivative Evidence: Experts’ Opinions
State v. Charles W. Mark, 2008 WI App 44; on appeal following remand in State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding1:
¶28 In Kastigar, the … Court stated that, once a defendant demonstrates that he or she has testified under a grant of immunity for matters related to the prosecution,
Voluntariness – Statement to Field Agent
State v. Charles W. Mark, 2008 WI App 44; on appeal following remand in State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Parolee’s statement made under grant of immunity (per State v. Evans, 77 Wis. 2d 225, 252 N.W.2d 664 (1977)),