On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Pierre R. Conner, 2012 WI App 105 (recommended for publication); case activity

Interrogations – Miranda-Edwards Rule – Unequivocal Request for Counsel 

The issues on a request-for-counsel challenge to in-custody interrogation are whether the individual  unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and, if so, whether he subsequently reinitiated questioning, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981). Although the trial court found that Conner’s requests for counsel were equivocal,

State v. Johnnie Austin, 2011AP2953-CR, District 1, 8/14/12

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

Continued detention of Austin, following an indisputably proper stop for illegal parking, was supported by reasonable suspicion:

¶14      This court disagrees; the trial court properly found Officer Tisher’s continued detention of Austin reasonable.  If, during a valid traffic stop, an officer becomes reasonably suspicious of an individual,

State v. Craig R. Moss, 2012AP259-CR, District 3, 8/14/12

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

Terry stop of Moss’s car supported by reasonable suspicion of involvement in drug activity:

¶10      While patrolling a high crime area in the middle of the night, Steffens observed a vehicle stop briefly in front of a known drug house.  When the vehicle observed Steffens’ squad car,

State v. Yvette A., 2012AP548, District 1, 8/14/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity

Parent’s failure to appear at grounds phase of TPR trial, because she was locked in a mental health unit, supported default judgment, where parent had documented history of checking herself into hospitals despite actual need for psychiatric treatment.

¶13      Because entry of default is a particularly harsh sanction,

State v. Michael P. Green, 2011AP2137-CR, District 2, 8/8/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity

Traffic stop, based on report by gas station attendant of suspected drunk driver, was sufficiently reliable to support investigatory stop.

¶10      This court has previously held that a tip shows sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when the informant identifies himself or herself to the dispatcher,

State v. Anthony S. Irving, 2011AP1908-CR, District 2, 8/8/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

A defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation, State v. Imani, 2010 WI 66, ¶20, 326 Wis. 2d 179, 786 N.W.2d 40, but it must be triggered by a “clear and unequivocal” request for self-representation, State v. Darby,

State v. Tracy A. Stokes, 2011AP2379-CR, District 1, 8/7/12

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

Stokes’ § 974.06 motion didn’t “set forth any reason, much a sufficient reason, for failing” to raise in his prior postconviction motion the issues presently raised, therefore the issues are procedurally barred, State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994),

State v. Michael Anthony Lock, 2012 WI App 99 (recommended for publication); case activity

Other-Acts Evidence 

Lock was tried and convicted for homicide, kidnapping and possession with intent to deliver. The State elicited testimony from numerous witnesses to the effect that Lock headed a vast criminal enterprise, of which these crimes were a part in that the two homicide victims were drug dealers, whom Lock killed (or ordered killed) over drug money.

State v. Mark M. Benson, 2012 WI App 101 (recommended for publication); case activity

Equal Protection – Homicide of Unborn Child by Intoxicated Use of Motor Vehicle, §§ 939.75(2)(b)3, 940.09(1)(c) 

Section § 939.75(2)(b)3 exempts from criminal liability any “act by a woman who is pregnant with an unborn child that results in the death of or great bodily harm, substantial bodily harm or bodily harm to that unborn child.”

State v. Cody A. Gibson, 2012 WI App 103 (recommended for publication); case activity

Restitution order to reimburse insurance company and owner for insurance deductible, in relation to losses arising from stolen auto, upheld. The company (Acuity) paid the owners $11,113 the same day the car was stolen, but the car was recovered with very little damage the very next day. The car was appraised at $10,379 and Acuity turned it over to a salvage company,