On Point blog, page 307 of 483
Complaint – Sufficiency; Standard of Review – Transcripts not in Record
State v. Michael L. Gengler, 2010AP1999, District 2, 4/6/11
court of appeals (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity
¶6 The trial court determined that the complaint and the amended complaint were proper, stating,
The complaint was duly sworn on oath. The complaint was signed and filed by an assistant district attorney as prescribed by WIS. STAT. § 968.02(1). The complaint alleges multiple violations of WIS.
Reasonable Suspicion – Field Sobriety Testing
State v. Rafael Labedzki, 2010AP2501-CR, District 2, 4/6/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Labedzki: Walter Arthur, Piel, Jr.; case activity
Reasonable suspicion for sobriety testing upheld, where officer had basis for concluding Labedzki was driving while intoxicated after an unchallenged stop for speeding. In brief: “Given that the trooper observed an alcoholic smell coming from Labedzki’s vehicle, a passenger who appeared drunk, bloodshot and glassy eyes on Labedzki,
Traffic Stop – Mistake of Fact
County of Sheboygan v. Jeffrey L. Bubolz, 2010AP2997, District 2, 4/6/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Bubolz: Casey J. Hoff; case activity
Ignoring a warning sign that a road is closed except to local traffic creates reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, even though the sign was an “unofficial” one put up by the contractor.
¶11 Failure to adhere to official traffic signs is a violation of WIS.
Right to Present Defense – Hearsay Testimony; “Shiffra” Disclosure; Judicial Bias
State v. Bryan Peter Leather, 2010AP354-CR, District 1, 4/5/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Leather: Rex Anderegg; case activity
Leather argues he was entitled to call the prosecutor as a witness to testify about the complainant’s hearsay statements to her. The 6th amendment right to present a defense (confrontation and compulsory process) isn’t absolute and in particular doesn’t extend to irrelevant evidence. The offer of proof in support of admissibility shows that the complainant’s statements to the prosecutor weren’t inconsistent with her testimony,
Reasonable Suspicion – OWI Stop; Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Suppression Rule; Briefing Rules
City of West Allis v. Susan Schneidler, 2010AP2531, District 1, 4/5/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schneidler: Thomas C. Simon; case activity
Tip from an identified citizen informant – that she had seen Schneidler drinking alcohol before driving off – supported stop of Schneidler’s car, without requiring independent corroboration.
¶18 In short, Parr was a reliable witness who told police that she personally observed Schneidler drink alcohol and then drive and who made herself available to the police for questioning.
Appellate Procedure – Mootness Doctrine; Sentencing Review – Consideration of Pending Charge
State v. Thomas J. Hoffman, 2010AP1327-CR, District 2, 3/30/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hoffman: Kathleen A. Lindgren; case activity
Hoffman’s challenge to the length of his sentence became moot once he had fully served it.
¶6 At the outset, the State contends that Hoffman’s appeal is moot; he has served his entire seven-month sentence and this court’s review on his motion for sentence modification will have no practical effect.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 3/11
court of appeals publication orders, 3/30/11
On Point posts from this list:
2011 WI App 28 State v. Derek J. Copeland
2011 WI App 30 State v. Rory A. Kuenzi
2011 WI App 31 Shirley Anderson v. Northwood School District
2011 WI App 34 State v. Jason L. Miller
2011 WI App 43 State v.
§ 951.02, Animal Cruelty, in rel. to Ch. 29 Hunting Restrictions
State v. Robby D. Kuenzi, 2011 WI App 30; for Rory Kuenzi: Thomas W. Johnson; for Robby Kuenzi: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Animal Cruelty, § 951.02
Cruel mistreatment of non-captive wild animals – in this case, deer intentionally rammed by snowmobiles, concededly cruel acts – may be prosecuted under § 951.02, whether or not the acts are specifically regulated by chapter 29 hunting restrictions.
Equitable Estoppel: Can’t Bar Prosecution, as Matter of Law
State v. James M. Drown, 2011 WI App 53; for Drown: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
As a matter of law, equitable estoppel doesn’t bar prosecution of a crime. After pleading guilty to Shawano County charges related to an abduction and assault, Drown was charged in Oconto based on the same incident. The trial court granted a defense motion to dismiss on the ground of equitable estoppel,
State ex rel. Ozanne v. Fitzgerald, 2011AP613-LV, District 4
Yesterday, the DOJ moved to withdraw its petition for leave to appeal the TRO entered by the Dane County Circuit Court last week. The DOJ argues that the appeal is moot because Act 10 became effective the day after its publication by the Legislative Reference Bureau on March 25th. The court of appeals swiftly denied the motion, explaining: “it appears that we lack the authority to grant the withdrawal motion while our certification is pending and that the Attorney General should have addressed his motion to the Supreme Court.”