On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Robert M. Schmitt, 2012 WI App 121 (recommended for publication); case activity

Although “the summons, complaint and the supporting affidavit must each be authenticated as a condition of personal jurisdiction when commencing a forfeiture action,” ¶1,  an authentication defect attributable to a clerk’s error is merely technical and doesn’t impair jurisdiction.

¶4        In Schmitt’s case, the first page of the summons and the first page of the complaint were each authenticated,

County of Marathon v. Paul R. DeBuhr, District 3, 2011AP2959, 10/2/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

¶13      At the outset, we observe that DeBuhr was given the opportunity to raise his concerns about Hackworthy’s testimony and retrograde extrapolation in the circuit court but failed to do so.  DeBuhr never responded to the County’s brief in support of admitting the testimony and never offered any argument in support of his earlier assertion that he believed retrograde extrapolation was “not proper science.”  As a result,

Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, District 1, 10/2/12; court of appeals (1-judge, ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 2/11/13; case activity

Ch. 51 Commitment – Sufficiency of Evidence

Evidence held sufficient to uphold commitment, on issue of “dangerousness,” State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, (1990), applied:

 ¶12      Here,

State v. Frederick L. Lucht, 2011AP1644-CR, District 4, 9/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The record supports the existence of an agreement between Lucht and another to commit the crime of first-degree intentional homicide.

¶28      Lucht refers us to cases standing for propositions that a conspiracy cannot be based on a mere “agreement to negotiate,” see United States v.

court of appeals publication orders, 9/27/12

On Point posts:

2012 WI App 99 State v. Michael Anthony Lock

2012 WI App 101 State v. Mark M. Benson

2012 WI App 103 State v. Cody A. Gibson

2012 WI App 104 State v. Jason M. Jacobs

2012 WI App 105 State v.

State v. Pamela L. Hammersley, 2012AP1131-CR, District 2, 9/26/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Stop of vehicle, assertedly for violating local trespassing ordinance, held not supportable:

¶3        It is settled law that a stop cannot be based on an officer’s mistaken understanding of the law.  State v. Longcore, 226 Wis. 2d 1, 3-4, 594 N.W.2d 412 (Ct.

Buffalo County Department of Health & Human Services v. Jennifer C., 2012AP1564, District 3, 9/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Though not “independently admissible,” a long list of damaging items related to Jennifer’s background (such as theparent’s father’s sexual abuse of his daughters, and Jennifer’s own emotional and sexual abuse by her adoptive parents) was admissible to show the basis for an expert’s opinion that Jennifer was unlikely to meet conditions for return of her children:

¶16      Wisconsin Stat. 

State v. Mark E. Johnson, 2011AP2673-CR, District 3, 9/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Cross-examination of Johnson, on trial for possession of marijuana and bail jumping, as to his marijuana use was proper, but as to his use of cocaine (eliciting an admission) was reversible error:

¶10      Johnson concedes that, after he testified he never possessed marijuana, the State was permitted to cross-examine him about a previous instance where he possessed marijuana.  

State v. Timothy W. Bastian, 2012AP793-CR, District 3, 9/25/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

 The court holds, without resolving the issue of whether reasonable suspicion sufficed, that probable cause supported Bastian’s traffic stop for inattentive driving, given “the circuit court’s factual determination that Bastian was ‘looking towards the passenger seat’”:

¶10      Wisconsin Stat. § 346.89, titled “Inattentive driving,” provides in relevant part:  “No person while driving a motor vehicle shall be so engaged or occupied as to interfere with the safe driving of such vehicle.”  Wis.

State v. William R. Hartman, 2011AP622, District 4, 9/20/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

OWI – Refusal Hearing – Raising Challenge to Lawfulness of Stop

Refusal hearing supports litigation of lawfulness of stop; State v. Anagnos, 2012 WI 64, ¶42, 341 Wis. 2d 576, 815 N.W.2d 675, followed:

 ¶14      Accordingly, we reject the State’s contention that Hartman improperly raised the issue of reasonable suspicion at the refusal hearing.