On Point blog, page 185 of 485
Errors of law can’t be challenged by writ of coram nobis
State v. Aman D. Singh, 2015AP850-CR, District 4, 1/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Singh, appealing pro se, seeks to reverse a twelve-year-old OWI-second conviction for which his sentence is long over.
Yearlong failure to disclose witnesses merits exclusion
State v. Caroline D. Prieto, 2016 WI App 15; case activity (including briefs)
Nearly three years after the defense demand, and a year after the first (of two) court orders to produce a witness list, the state still hadn’t done so. The circuit court’s response? No list, no witnesses. The state appeals and…
No Miranda warning, no problem, thanks to attenuation doctrine, lack of interrogation
State v. Brian I. Harris, 2016 WI App 2, petition for review granted 4/6/16, affirmed 2017 WI 31; case activity (including briefs)
Incriminating statements Harris made while he was in custody were admissible despite the lack of Miranda warnings because the statements were either sufficiently attenuated from the taint of police questioning or were not made in response to police interrogation.
Temporarily suspending license didn’t preclude state from seeking revocation
State v. Keith D. McEvoy, 2015AP1262, District 4, 12/30/2015 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under the facts of this case, the temporary suspension of McEvoy’s license based on his blood alcohol content didn’t equitably estop the State from seeking to revoke his license based on his refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood.
Consent to blood draw wasn’t coerced by warning about revocation for refusal or threat to get warrant
State v. Bradley A. Anderson, 2015AP1573-CR, 12/23/15, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Anderson’s consent to a blood draw after his OWI arrest was not vitiated by being told that, if he refused the blood draw, his driving privileges would be revoked and the officer would get a warrant for a blood draw. In addition, the circuit court properly found that Anderson didn’t later withdraw his consent to the blood draw.
Cutting work hours for fear of in-home day care supports restitution
State v. Frank E. Pilarski, 2015AP425, District 2, 12/23/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Pilarski sexually assaulted a child in his in-home day care; the court of appeals upholds a restitution award for the child’s mother’s reduced work hours necessitated by her unwillingness to use any other in-home day care after the assaults.
Passenger’s apparent distress supported stop of car
State v. Tommy K. Miller, 2015AP1211-CR, District 4, 12/23/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The seizure of Miller’s car was justified under the community caretaker doctrine because the officer’s observations led him to believe Miller’s passenger was in distress. Having lawfully seized the car, the officer’s subsequent discoveries gave him reason to ask Miller to perform field sobriety tests (FSTs) and submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT).
Counsel ineffective; failed to challenge credibility in swearing contest
State v. Rafael D. Honig, 2016 WI App 10; case activity (including briefs)
Honig, convicted at trial of two first-degree child sexual assaults, asserts that his trial counsel mishandled three issues bearing on the credibility of his accusers; the court of appeals agrees.
Evidence sufficient to prove robbed bank was “chartered”
State v. James Lee Eady, Jr., 2016 WI App 12; case activity (including briefs)
Under the forgiving standard for assessing the sufficiency of evidence, the state managed to introduce enough circumstantial evidence to prove that the bank Eady robbed was “chartered” by a state of the federal government, and therefore was a “financial institution” for purposes of § 943.87.
Making sure fido had a bone was a bona fide community caretaking function
State v. Charles Ray Stewart, 2014AP276-CR, District 1, 12/22/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The warrantless search for and seizure of evidence from Stewart’s apartment was lawful because, after Stewart allowed police to enter the apartment and was arrested, the community caretaker doctrine allowed police to remain in the apartment to assure Stewart’s dog was cared for, and the office could seize evidence discovered in plain view.