On Point blog, page 299 of 491
State v. Little A. Stewart, 2011 WI App 152
court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Little: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity
Probable Cause to Arrest
¶14 In Stewart’s case, the pertinent facts are:
• On March 10, 2009, a reliable confidential informant told Agent Gray that one of the people who had been arrested with Alderman McGee was going to be bringing cocaine to Milwaukee. After Gray obtained the names and photographs of individuals who had been arrested in Alderman McGee’s case and showed them to the informant,
Traffic Stop – Duration; Frisk – “Armed and Presently Dangerous”
State v. Jon Paul A. Fernandez, 2010AP1394-CR, District 2, 10/12/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Fernandez: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Concededly lawful traffic stop (operating without headlights) wasn’t unreasonably prolonged by warrant checks, arrest of passenger on warrant for unpaid forfeiture, and then search of car incident to that arrest, before the traffic ticket was issued, ¶11 (“Absent any indication of unreasonable delay,
Juvenile Sex Offender Registration – Authority to Stay
State v. Malcolm L., 2011AP714, District 2, 10/12/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Malcolm L.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Juvenile courts have authority to stay sex offender registration, § 938.34(16), and State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1. Here, the trial court erroneously failed to exercise discretion on Malcolm’s request for such a stay.
First-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficiency of Evidence; Evidence – Habit, § 904.06(1)
State v. Thomas C. Niesen, 2010AP1864-CR, District 2, 10/5/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Niesen: James A. Rebholz; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction § 940.01(1), court rejecting argument that State failed to prove that Niesen inflicted the fatal knife wound. (Niesen made certain damaging admissions; he met the description of the man last seen with the victim; his sperm was found in the ¶¶2-21.
Sex Offender Registration – Delinquency Proceeding
State v. Timothy J. K., 2011AP1091, District 2, 10/5/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Timothy J.K.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
The trial court’s requirement of sex offender registration, § 301.45(1m)(d)(1), is upheld against an argument that the court misconstrued an expert’s recommendation of no registration.
¶9 Timothy fails to clear the first hurdle of the Tiepelman standard.
Search Incident to Arrest – Automobile, Probable Cause to Search
State v. Cindy R. Billips, 2009AP2493-CR, District 2, 10/5/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Billips: Timothy R. Muth, Amy Lynn MacArdy; case activity
Following OWI arrest supported by probable cause, the officer was authorized to search the vehicle for evidence relevant to the OWI arrest:
¶9 Here, it was reasonable for Kinservik to believe that further evidence related to Billips’ OWI arrest might be found in the vehicle.
TPR – Grounds – CHIPS Order
State v. Anastasia S., 2011AP1423 / State v. Lemar T., 2011AP1403, District 1, 10/4/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anastasia S.: Kevin M. Long, Brandon Gutschow; case activity; for Lemar T.: Jane S. Earle; case activity
¶18 “Grounds for termination [of parental rights] must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Ann M.M. v. Rob S.,
Reasonable Suspicion – Abandonment of Property
State v. Rodney D. Johnson, 2010AP2470-CR, District 1, 10/4/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Johnson: Richard L. Kaiser; case activity
Acting on a drug tip, police targeted Johnson, and saw him driving a car with a cracked windshield. After Johnson got out of the car, the officers approached, and “asked” to talk to him, but he walked away. The officers then “asked” him to take his hands out of his pocket,
Newly Discovered Evidence: New Forensic Method, Photogrammetric Analysis; Interest-of-Justice Review
State v. Brian K. Avery, 2011 WI App 148 (recommended for publication), supreme court review granted, 2/23/12; for Avery: Keith A. Findley; case activity; prior 974.06 appeal: 2008AP500-CR; direct appeal: 1997AP317
Newly Discovered Evidence – New Forensic Method – Photogrammetric Analysis
Expert photogrammetric opinion, derived from video enhancement technology (“VISAR”) not commercially available until after Avery’s trial,
Appellate Procedure: “Waiver,” Distinguished from “Forfeiture” – Civil Case Necessity of Post-Trial Motion
J. K. v. Mark Peters, 2011 WI App 149 (recommended for publication); case activity
Appellate Procedure – “Waiver,” Distinguished from “Forfeiture”
¶1 n. 1:
In using the term “waiver,” we are aware of the recently decided case of State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, where our supreme court clarified the distinction between the terms “forfeiture” and “waiver.” See id.