On Point blog, page 328 of 483
Venue: Instruction, Proof; Obstructing: Proof; Instruction: Recently Stolen Property
State v. Donald L. Schultz, 2010 WI App 124 (decision originally issued 7/20/10, subsequently withdrawn; reissued 8/17/10); for Schultz: Margaret A. Maroney, Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Venue – Instruction
¶12 Although venue is not an element of a crime, it nonetheless must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Sufficiency of Evidence Review; Reverse Waiver; Sentence – Exercise of Discretion
State v. Carl Morgan, 2009AP74-CR, District III, 7/20/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Morgan: Ralph Sczygelski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Sufficiency of Evidence Review
Review of a denied motion for dismissal at the close of the prosecutor’s case-in-chief is waived where the defendant proceeds to put in a defense. All the evidence, including the defense presentation,
Guilty Pleas – Collateral Consequence – Federal Gun Ban
State v. Kurt D. Neis, No. 2009AP1287-CR, District IV, 7/15/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Neis: Jacquelyn L. Wolter; BiC; Resp.; Supp. Resp.
Guilty Pleas – Collateral Consequence – Federal Gun Ban
Although Neis’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct, § 947.01, subjected him to the automatic federal firearm ban given the circuit court’s finding that the conduct related to domestic violence,
Traffic Stop – OWI
State v. Brittany A. Meye, No. 2010AP336-CR, District II, 7/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Meye: Kevin G. Keane; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶6 Meye argues that the odor of intoxicants alone is insufficient to raise reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop. We agree. We will not cite, chapter and verse, all the many cases in this state where either we or our supreme court found facts sufficient for an investigatory stop.
Alford Plea
State v. Lyle A. Lay, No. 2010AP81-CR, District III, 7/13/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Lay: Timothy A, Provis; BiC; Resp.; Reply
An Alford plea may be one of “no contest” as well as “guilty”:
¶8 Lay is mistaken that an Alford plea cannot be entered within the context of pleading no contest.
Jury Instructions: Exposing Child to Harmful Materials – Accident Defense – Waiver; Evidence: Richard A.P. – Corroboration Rule; Evidence: Character – Polygraph Offer; Voluntary Statement
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez, 2010 WI App 104, reversed, 2011 WI 63, see: this post; for Gonzalez: Kristin Anne Hodorowski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Jury Instructions – Exposing Child to Harmful Materials
The pattern instruction on exposing a child to harmful material, § 948.11(2)(a), accurately recites the elements, including scienter.
¶11 We agree with the trial court’s assessment that the pattern instruction accurately states the law.
TPR – Plea-Withdrawal
Dane Co. DHS v. Brittany W., No. 2009AP2778, District IV, 7/8/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not fo publication); for Brittany W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate
The court rejects Brittany’s claim she didn’t understand the consequence of her no-contest plea (that she would be deemed unfit, and that disposition would turn on the child’s best interests), given the trial judge’s finding that the denial of such knowledge wasn’t credible,
Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct; Effective Assistance
State v. Raymond A. Habersat, No. 2009AP976-CR, District I, 7/7/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Habersat: Angela Conrad Kachelski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct
On Habersat’s trial for first-degree sexual assault of a child, admission of evidence of his 1991 sexual assault of a child to establish motive and intent was a proper exercise of discretion,
Sentencing – Accurate Information; New Factor
State v. Michael J. Grabowski, No. 2009AP2118-CR, District I, 7/7/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Grabowski: Jamie F. Wiemer; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Sentencing – Accurate Information
¶5 Grabowski argues that the circuit court sentenced him based on inaccurate information. A defendant claiming that a sentencing court relied on inaccurate information must show that: (1) the information was inaccurate;
Confrontation – Limits on Cross-Examination
State v. Olu A. Rhodes, No. 2009AP25, District I, 7/7/10; reversed, 2011 WI 73
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication), reversed, 2011 WI 73; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶10 A defendant’s “right to confront and to cross-examine is not absolute[,]” however, and “‘trial judges retain wide latitude … to impose reasonable limits.’” Id.