On Point blog, page 285 of 483
OWI – Implied Consent Law
State v. Luke T. Nirmaier, 2011AP1355-CR, District 3, 12/28/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nirmaier: Michael M. Rajek; case activity
The odor of alcohol on Nirmaier following a traffic accident resulting in substantial bodily injury triggered the implied consent law, notwithstanding absence of probable cause to arrest at that point:
¶9 Wisconsin Stat. § 343.305(3) outlines different scenarios in which an officer may invoke the implied consent law and request a chemical test of an individual’s breath,
Recommitment and involuntary medication orders affirmed
Shawano County v. Anne R., 2011AP2040, District 3, 12/28/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anne R.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Anne R. challenges the extension of her mental health commitment / involuntary medication order, on the ground the County failed to prove she would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn, § 51.20(1)(am). The court rejects the argument,
Identity Theft – Sufficiency Of Evidence; Restitution – Substantial Factor
State v. Cedric O Clacks, 2011AP338-CR, District 4, 12/22/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clacks: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to prove contested, fourth element of identity theft (intentional representation user of personal identification document of another authorized to use it), § 943.201(2)(a) as party to the crime.
¶15 Specifically, Clacks contends that handing the credit card to a sales clerk to make a purchase and signing the electronic credit card slip cannot,
TPR – Telephonic Appearance
Dane Co. DHS v. Johnny S., 2011AP1659, District 4, 12/22/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Johnny S.: Dennis Schertz; case activity
¶7 Johnny contends he was not able to meaningfully participate at the trial for three reasons. First, he appeared by telephone, not videoconference, and he did not waive his right to appear by videoconference. Second, he could not hear what was being said during trial.
Search & Seizure: Third-Party Consent – Residential Entry, Search of Laptop
State v. Kenneth M. Sobczak, 2012 WI App 6 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 6/13/12; for: Sobczak: Ryan J. Hetzel; case activity
¶6 The issue in this case is whether the girlfriend—as a guest in Sobczak’s parents’ home—had the authority to consent to the officer’s entry into the Sobczak residence and to the search and seizure of Sobczak’s laptop.[1] We hold that she did
Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation Admissible on Rebuttal; Appellate Review: Omitted Transcript Presumed to Support Discretionary Trial Court Ruling; Sleeping Juror
State v. Brent T. Novy, 2012 WI App 10 (recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 6/13/12; for Novy: Joseph George Easton; case activity
Rebuttal – Evidence Excluded from Case-in-Chief for Discovery Violation
Expert witness testimony, excluded from the State’s case-in-chief as a sanction failure to identify the witness during discovery, was admissible on rebuttal to attack the defendant’s testimony after he testified.
Search & Seizure: Warrantless Entry (Duplex, Common Hallway) – Third-Party Consent – Exigent Circumstances
State v. Anthony D. Guard, 2012 WI App 8 (recommended for publication); for Guard: Richard L. Zaffiro; case activity
Warrantless Entry – Duplex, Common Hallway
Guard, a resident of a duplex upper flat, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hallway by which his unit was accessed, such that warrantless police entry into that hallway without consent or exigent circumstances violated the fourth amendment; factors enunciated by State v.
Sentencing – Factors – Medical Care
State v. Lisa L. Payne, 2010AP1995-CR, District 3, 12/20/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Payne: Eric R. Pangburn; case activity
The court, in imposing a sentence to prison confinement term of 13 months, expressly took into effect the possibility that Payne’s medical needs would not “be addressed adequately in a county jail.” Upon postconviction challenge to the sentence, “however, the court clarified that the length of Payne’s sentence was not dependent upon the care that she would receive in either jail or prison,”
Prosecutorial Vindictiveness – New Charges; Application of “Read-in” Rule
State v. Charles A. Clayton-Jones, 2010AP2239-CR, District 4, 12/15/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clayton-Jones: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell; case activity
Clayton-Jones resolved a 2006 charge (involving sexual assault of a boy) with a plea bargain, in which the state was to recommend 12 years initial confinement. Before sentencing, he allegedly violated bond conditions, and the state sought to be relieved of its bargained-for allocution limit.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 12/11
court of appeals publication orders, 12/14/11
On Point posts from this list:
2011 WI App 156 State v. Forrest Andre Saunders
2011 WI App 157 State v. Jamie L. Salonen
2011 WI App 163 Melissa M. Hines v. Daniel K. Resnick, M.D.
2011 WI App 164 State v. Michael T. Ziller