On Point blog, page 247 of 483
Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury. Closing argument — state’s reference to defendant’s failure to call witnesses. Prior inconsistent statement — witness’s lack of recollection
State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez, 2012AP1818-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 1/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 124; case activity
Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury
Where inmate victim of battery by another prisoner identified one of his assailants as an inmate “with platinum teeth”
TPR: Waiver of jury and stipulation to elements doesn’t survive subsequent appeal, reversal, and remand
Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J.W., 2013 WI App 102; consolidated case activity: 2012AP2387; 2012AP2388
The County petitioned to terminate Roberta’s parental rights in 2007 on the grounds her children were in continuing need of protection and services. After a jury trial and dispositional hearing her rights were terminated, but on appeal the termination order was reversed and remanded for a new fact-finding hearing. (¶4).
Joinder — multiple incidents of armed robbery, two of which also involved homicide. Identification — suggestiveness of photo array
State v. Deontaye Terrel Lusk, 2012AP587-CR, 2012AP588-CR, 2012AP589-CR, & 2012AP590-CR, District 1, 7/16/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP587-CR; 2012AP588-CR; 2012AP589-CR; 2012AP590-CR
Joinder
Lusk was charged in four cases with crimes arising from five armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery that occurred in April, May, June, and July, 2009. In two of the robberies the victim was killed,
Search and seizure — validity of search warrant: staleness of probable cause; overbreadth
State v. Diane M. Millard, 2012AP2646-CR, District 2, 7/17/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
A search warrant was supported by probable cause because the two events cited in the warrant request–a controlled heroin buy in January 2011 and a garbage search in July 2011 revealing “a small, circle shaped screen with burnt [THC] residue on it” (¶2)–were not too far apart in time or too distinct in nature:
¶9 Regarding the staleness challenge,
Enhancer time may be added to extended supervision portion of bifurcated sentence for misdemeanor enhanced under § 939.62
State v. Shawn J. Robinson, 2012AP2498-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Robinson was convicted of two misdemeanors which were enhanced under the repeater statute, § 939.62(1)(a). He was sentenced on each count to bifurcated sentences consisting of one year of confinement and one year of extended supervision. (¶¶2-4). He later challenged the sentences under State v.
Postconviction motion under § 974.06 challenging enhanced misdemeanor sentence is barred because issue was not raised in previous postconviction motion
State v. Zackory J. Kerr, 2013AP273-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Kerr was sentenced to one year of confinement and one of extended supervision, consecutive to any other sentence. Shortly after sentencing he unsuccessfully challenged the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (¶¶2-4). A few years later he moved for sentence modification based on State v. Gerondale,
Exposing genitals to a child, § 948.10, is limited to situations involving face-to-face contact and therefore doesn’t cover “sexting”
State v. Zachary P. Stuckey, 2013 WI App 98; case activty
The court of appeals concludes that the prohibition in § 948.10 against exposing genitals to a child is a “variable obscenity” statute, and to avoid unconstitutional application it must be read to require proof the defendant knew he was exposing himself to someone under the age of 18. Because the statute does not explicitly include that element,
Guest Post: Marcus Berghahn on the Court of Appeals decision upholding the use of hearsay at preliminary hearings
State v. Martin P. O’Brien, State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97.
As briefly noted in a previous post, the Court of Appeals has upheld Wis. Stat. § 970.038, which makes hearsay admissible at preliminary hearings and allows bindover based solely on hearsay. On Point is pleased to present this guest post about the decision by Attorney Marcus Berghahn,
Court of Appeals upholds statute making hearsay admissible at preliminary hearings and allowing bindover based solely on hearsay
State v. Martin P. O’Brien, State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97; consolidated court of appeals decision; case activity: Martin O’Brien; Kathleen O’Brien; Charles Butts.
¶1 The newly enacted Wis. Stat. § 970.038 (2011-12) makes hearsay evidence admissible at a criminal defendant’s preliminary examination and permits the probable cause determination and bindover decision at a preliminary examination to be based “in whole or in part” on hearsay evidence.
Ineffective assistance of counsel — failure to object to evidence. Circuit court’s discretion to admit other acts evidence and child victim’s video statement
State v. Roy H. Beals, 2012AP1079-CR, District 2/1, 7/9/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Ineffective assistance of counsel
Trial counsel in a sexual assault prosecution was not ineffective for failing to object to portions of two different video statements of the child victim (one from 2007, the other from 2009) because the evidence did not prejudice Beals. Trial counsel did object to the first 10 minutes of the 2007 video until after it had been played,