On Point blog, page 237 of 485
Court of appeals upholds stop based on informant’s tip and officer’s observation
Village of Hales Corners v. David E. Adams, 2013AP1128, 1/14/13, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Welcome to another court of appeals decision holding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop a person for drunk driving. In this particular case, an informant tipped off a police dispatcher, who then informed an officer in the vicinity about a possible drunk driver. Armed with a vehicle description and a license plate number,
What standard of review applies to circuit court decisions re the admission of expert testimony?
Here’s an issue in search of a published decision. In 2011, Wisconsin amended Wis. Stat § 907.02 to require circuit courts to apply the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony. Thus far, no Wisconsin appellate court has interpreted and applied the new § 907.02, so we don’t know the standard for reviewing circuit court decisions pursuant to the statute. The old test for the admission/exclusion of expert testimony wasn’t too complicated,
Court of appeals applies “law of the case” doctrine to extensions of Chapter 51 commitments.
Polk County Human Services Dep’t v. Boe H., 2013AP1719, District 3, 1/14/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity
This appeal turns on the court of appeals’ application of the law of the case doctrine, so it’s necessary to recap some procedural history.
After a jury found Boe mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous under the “fifth standard”, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.e, the circuit court committed him to the DHS for 6 months.
Court of appeals discerns the rule of State v. Forbush
State v. Jesse J. Delebreau, 2014 WI App 21, petition for review granted, 5/23/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 55; case activity
You remember State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, 332 Wis. 2d 620, 796 N.W.2d 741? That’s the one that considered whether Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009),
Trial counsel’s failure to raise viable defense means defendant gets new trial
State v. Fontaine Washington, 2011AP2462-CR, District 1, 1/17/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Washington fled from officers trying to stop the car he was driving. (¶2). Before Washington was finally stopped and arrested, the officers in pursuit saw him throw something “shiny” out the car window; a search of the area where the object was thrown turned up a gun about 30 feet off the roadway.
Video of robbery taken by private surveillance camera was properly authenticated
State v. Robert Vincent McCoy, 2012AP2583-CR, District 1, 1/7/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
An armed robbery outside a bar was caught on the security camera of a nearby homeowner, who gave a copy of the video to the police by uploading it on YouTube and emailing it to the police. The video was used to identify McCoy and then “burned” to a DVD and played at his trial.
Evidence was sufficient to prove ch. 980 respondent is still dangerous
State v. Edward Cotton, 2013AP452, District 1, 1/7/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
At the hearing on Cotton’s petition for discharge from his ch. 980 commitment the state’s experts testified that Cotton’s high psychopathy coupled with his sexual deviance raised his risk to reoffend. They also opined that sex offender treatment Cotton received in prison did not significantly reduce his risk because it wasn’t designed to treat offenders with high psychopathy.
Applying Daubert standard only to ch. 980 cases filed after adoption of the standard does not violate equal protection or due process
State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9, petition for review granted, 5/23/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 3; case activity
In this follow-up to the recent decision in State v. Alger, 2013 WI App 148, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, the court of appeals rejects two constitutional challenges to the legislation that limits the newly-adopted Daubert standard for the admission of expert testimony to ch.
Once again, court of appeals holds enhancer time may be used for extended supervision portion of an enhanced misdemeanor sentence
State v. Torrey L. Smith-Iwer, 2013AP1426-CR, District 1, 12/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Smith-Iwer was convicted of four misdemeanors as a repeat offender under § 939.62(1)(a) and given four consecutive two-year sentences, each consisting of one year of confinement and one year of extended supervision. He moved for postconviction relief, arguing the sentences were illegal under State v. Volk,
Two-year, eight-month charging delay did not violate Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantee
State v. Thomas A. Jahnke, 2013AP1576-CR, District 1, 12/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated depends on: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay; the defendant’s timely assertion of the speedy-trial right; and prejudice to the defense from the delay. Prejudice is assessed by considering pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern of the defendant,