On Point blog, page 4 of 6
State v. Brad Forbush, 2008AP3007-CR, Wis SCt review granted 3/16/10
decision below: 2010 WI App 11; for Forbush: Craig Mastantuono; Rebecca M. Coffee
Issues:
Whether the right to counsel under the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits the state from interrogating a represented individual once the state is aware of the representation
Whether a suspect made an equivocal request for counsel during police questioning, thereby invoking his right to counsel under the Wisconsin Constitution and requiring suppression of his confession at trial
Whether the circuit court’s suppression order should be affirmed without reaching the viability of State v.
State v. Stephen A. Broad, 2009AP1983-CR, District II, 3/17/2010
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication) BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Traffic Arrest
Probable cause to believe Broad drove on public roadway, hence to arrest for OWI, where car was found off the road, Broad was in driver’s seat and admitted to being driver, car “was warm and running.”
Right to Testify
Violation of rule requiring contemporaneous colloquy as to waiver of right to testify at trial doesn’t lead to automatic reversal of conviction;
State v. Brandon J. Carter, 2010 WI App 37
court of appeals decision; for Carter: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Ex Parte Judicial Questioning, Pretrial Proceeding
Pretrial judicial questioning of a witness at return of a bench warrant worked deprivation of the defendant’s rights to counsel and presence at trial when the witness was subsequently impeached with statements she made during that exchange, ¶¶17-21. The error, though occurring but once and limited to impeachment,
State v. Tom L. Garcia, 2010 WI App 26
court of appeals decision; for Garcia: Paul M. Ruby
Defendant’s Right to Testify – After-the-Fact Evidentiary Hearing on Required Colloquy
Although a colloquy is required by State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85 before the defense rests without testimony from the defendant, failure to conduct the colloquy doesn’t automatically result in new trial but, rather, supports postconviction evidentiary hearing procedure.
¶14 The supreme court in Weed mandated a simple colloquy for courts to employ when a defendant chooses not to testify at trial.
State v. Brad E. Forbush, 2010 WI App 11; review granted 3/16/10
court of appeals decision, review granted 3/16/10; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee
Post-Charge Assertion of Right to Counsel during Interrogation
The mere fact that an attorney represents a defendant formally charged with a crime doesn’t bar the police from questioning the defendant; State v. Todd Dagnall, 2000 WI 82 (“Dagnall was not required to invoke the right to counsel in this case because he had been formally charged with a crime and counsel had been retained to represent him on that charge,” ¶4),
State v. Christopher J. Lesik, 2010 WI App 12, PFR filed
court of appeals decision; for Lesik: Anthony Cotton
Overbreadth challenge to 948.02, sexual assault of a child
Sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, § 948.02, isn’t unconstitutionally overbroad, against a theory that it criminalizes acts undertaken for “proper medical purpose.” Although the statute is silent with respect to medical conduct, potential overbreadth may be cured through judicial construction and the court therefore “conclude(s) here that ‘sexual intercourse’ as used in the sexual assault of a child statute does not include ‘bona fide medical,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Dog Sniff, Wisconsin Constitution
State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison
Issue/Holding: A dog sniff is no more a “search” under the Wisconsin than the U.S. Constitution, at least with respect to vehicles:
¶22 We are unwilling to undertake such a departure here. First, we note that there is no constitutionally protected interest in possessing contraband under the United States Constitution,
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11 Generally Follows Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison
Issue/Holding:
¶20 Historically, we have interpreted Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution in accord with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶15, 274 Wis. 2d 540,
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11 Generally Follows Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen
Issue/Holding:
¶18 Historically, we generally have interpreted Article I, Section 11 to provide the same constitutional guarantees as the Supreme Court has accorded through its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Arias, 311 Wis.
Warrants – No-Knock: Unannounced Entry, not Authorized by Warrant but Permissible Where Target not Inside
State v. Thomas William Brady, 2007 WI App 33, PFR filed 2/13/07
For Brady: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where the target of a search was not at home when the police forcibly entered pursuant to a search warrant, their unannounced entry did not, although not authorized by the warrant, violate the fourth amendment.
¶13 The first consideration is the safety of the police and others.