On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Eric James Hendrickson, 2010AP1181, District 3/4, 3/10/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Hendrickson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Under State v. Laxton, 2002 WI 82, 254 Wis. 2d 185, 647 N.W.2d 784, proof of a mental disorder implicitly proves requisite risk of sexually violent recidivism (“serious difficulty” controlling behavior). Therefore, “direct evidence” of such difficulty,

Waupaca County v. Heather M. Krueger, 2010AP1290, District 4, 3/10/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Krueger: John M. Carroll; case activity

Citizen’s detention of driver (for suspected drunk driving) until police arrived to effectuate probable cause-based arrest can’t support suppression of evidence because no state action was involved.

¶5        Krueger seeks suppression of evidence of her intoxicated driving obtained after she was stopped by Sparks,

Kenosha County v. Jodi A. Braune, 2010AP834, District 2, 3/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Braune: Theodore B. Kmiec, III; case activity

¶7        We hold that under the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 346.13(3), Braune’s deviation over the fog line was sufficient to establish probable cause that Braune committed a traffic violation.  When the deputy observed Braune’s conduct, he had probable cause that Braune did not drive “in the lane designated.”  See § 346.13(3). 

Richardson v. Henderson, 2010AP1765, District 2, 3/9/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); case activity

¶7, n.4:

Our supreme court has held that “when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.”  Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co.

State v. Lawrence Williams, 2010AP1028, District 1, 3/8/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity; prior history: 220 Wis.2d 458, 583 N.W.2d 845 (Ct.App. 1998)

Williams fails to provide a “sufficient reason” to overcome the serial litigation bar on his § 974.06 motion following direct appeal. He posits ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel, for failing to argue that trial counsel was ineffective in various respects.

State v. Kerry J. Collins, 2010AP788-CR, District 1, 3/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Collins: Gary Grass; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction under § 941.10, court rejecting Collins’ argument that State failed to prove he was the person who set off flare in City Hall bathroom. Whatever weaknesses and discrepancies existed as to culpability merely raised questions for the jury to resolve;

State v. Anthony M. Smith, 2009AP2867-CR, District 1/4, 3/3/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Smith: Rodney Cubbie, Syovata K. Edari; case activity

Trial court’s limitations on cross-examination with respect to State witness’s “prior mental condition” or use of medications (prescribed for his Bipolar Disorder and Attention Deficit Disorder) upheld as proper exercise of discretion. The witness was taking his medication at the time of the alleged offense,

State v. Kelly J. McCredie, 2010AP1179-CR, District 2, 3/2/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for McCredie: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

For purposes of 3rd-degree sexual assault, § 940.225(3), the actor cannot obtain consent by deceiving the victim as to his true identity. McCredie misled the victim into thinking he was his brother (she was sleeping in a dark room when he suddenly appeared;

State v. Winston B. Eison, 2011 WI App 52; for Eison: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Preservation of Issue – Motion in Limine

Eison objected to introduction of evidence of his arrest on an unrelated offense via motion in limine, which the trial court granted. At trial, however, the court allowed the State to introduce this evidence. Eison didn’t need to lodge additional objection to preserve the issue for review.

State v. Derek J. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28; for Copeland: David Leeper; case activity

Trial court has discretion under § 906.15(3) to order an attorney not to discuss with a sequestered witness who hasn’t yet testified the testimony of other witnesses; this authority extends to barring counsel from providing the sequestered witness with a transcript of prior-witness testimony. The trial court in this instance misperceived a lack of such authority,