On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2009AP25-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), on remand from, 2011 WI 73; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; case activity

Expert witness qualification rests in the sound discretion of the trial court; here, it was well within that discretion to allow the following testimony:

¶4        Marchant, who described herself as a “criminal intelligence analyst” working for the Department of Justice,

State v. Forrest Andre Saunders, 2011 WI App 156 (recommended for publication); for Saunders: Robert A. Kagen; case activity

Notice of Alibi, § 971.23(8) – DA Comment on Missing Witness 

“Alibi” merely refers to the fact that the defendant was elsewhere when the alleged occurred, ¶21, citing, State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, ¶13, 260 Wis. 2d 125, 659 N.W.2d 110. 

State v. Lavalle Rimmer, 2010AP2680-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rimmer: Christian C. Starner; case activity

The sentencing court did not actually rely on concededly inaccurate information, therefore Rimmer isn’t entitled to resentencing.

Methodology for analyzing inaccurate-information issue recited, ¶¶11-16. Court suggests that something akin to explicit reference to inaccurate information required, ¶16.)

State v. Joseph Hammer, 2010AP3019-CR, District 1, 11/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hammer: Rex Anderegg; case activity

The State’s conceded discovery violation (failure to produce reports or photographs related to a trajectory rod investigation) prejudiced the defense and therefore entitles Hammer to a new trial on two counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide: 1. the erroneously admitted trajectory rod evidence “severely undermined”

State v. Michael T. Ziller, 2011 WI App 164 (recommended for publication); for Ziller: Michael S. Holzman; case activity

¶11      On the basis of our review of the record in this case, we are satisfied that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Ziller.  The circuit court considered the three primary sentencing factors and noted them on the record.  See State v. Gallion,

Racine County HSD v. Bobby G. H., 2011AP795, District 2, 11/16/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bobby G.H.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Bobby’s phase-1 admission to termination of parental rights on the ground of failure to assume responsibility didn’t require that the trial court hear testimony before accepting the admission.

court of appeals certification, affirmed 2012 WI 73; for Ziegler: Christopher William Rose; case activity

Interfering with Custody, § 948.31(2) 

Issue certified: Whether the court of appeals’ prior interpretation of § 948.31(2) to require “initial permission” from the parent should be overruled, State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis. 

Langlade County Dept. of Social Services v. Rebecca D., 2010AP2497, District 3, 11/15/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Rebecca D.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶19      On the facts adduced at trial, Rebecca clearly failed to assume parental responsibility for Anthony, pursuant to the standards set forth in Wis. Stat. § 48.415(6). Anthony was nearly five months old when he was removed from Rebecca’s home.  

State v. Jamie L. Salonen, 2011 WI App 157 (recommended for publication); for Salonen: Robert J. Wells, Jr.; case activity

¶1        The trial court in this case granted Jamie L. Salonen’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after she asked to leave the scene of a roadside stop of a vehicle in which she was a passenger, which request was denied by police.  A passage in Arizona v.

City of Mequon v. Michael R. Wilt, 2011AP931, District 2, 11/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wilt: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; case activity

Because the trial court in this bench trial did not rely on the breath test result in finding Wilt guilty of OWI, therefore his argument that the PBT result was inadmissible need not be reached, ¶¶16-17. As to whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction absent the test result:

¶23      Proof of impairment was sufficient and established by clear,