On Point blog, page 334 of 485
Appellate Procedure: Standard of Review: Government Informant – Documentary Evidence; Confessions, 6th Amendment: Jailhouse Snitch
State v. Carl A. Lewis, Jr., 2010 WI App 52; for Lewis: John T. Wasielewski; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review: Government Informant
¶16 Our discussion must begin, as it almost always does, with the standard of review. In deciding whether a person is a government informant or agent for purposes of this Sixth Amendment analysis, the determination regarding the relationship or understanding between the police and the informant is a factual determination.
Jurisdiction
Village of West Salem v. Low, 2009AP2654, Dist IV, 3/25/2010
court of appeal decision (1-judge; not for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Challenge to OWI-1st in municipal court fails for want of jurisdiction, where judgment had been entered in circuit court because at the time no local municipal court existed.
An obscure problem, to be sure, but possibly of enough interest to be disseminated.
SVP Supervised Release Hearing: Petitioner’s Clear and Convincing Burden of Proof – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Tory L. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60; for Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
SVP – Supervised Release Hearing: Burden of Proof on Petitioner
Under revisions to § 980.08 wrought by 2005 Wis. Act 434 (eff. date 8/1/06), the burden of proof has been shifted from the State (to prove unsuitability for supervised release) to the petitioner (to show suitability),
Traffic Stop: Reasonable Suspicion
State v. Robert A. Tomaszewski, 2010 WI App 51; for Tomazewski: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Tomaszewski argues this is not a case in which reasonable suspicion that he was violating a traffic law would justify the stop. In Tomaszewski’s view, a temporary detention may be justified by reasonable suspicion only where an officer cannot determine,
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule: Detainer Act Claim
State v. Karon M. Asmus, 2010 WI App 48; for Asmus: Donald C. Dudley
Interstate Detainer Act claim is waived by guilty plea:
¶3 A guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, ¶18, 294 Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886. This rule applies even though the defendant attempts to preserve an issue by raising it in the circuit court.
Guardianship/Protective Placement – GAL Interview of Ward outside Presence of Adversary Counsel
Jennifer M. v. Franz Maurer, 2010 WI App 8
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court has authority to order a represented adult ward to submit to an interview with her guardian ad litem, outside the presence of her counsel and over her attorney’s objection, where the order also requires the guardian ad litem to report the content of the interview to the circuit court,” ¶1.
Holding:
¶11 The policies underlying the no-contact rule are of sufficient importance in guardianship cases that the right to counsel guaranteed by Wis.
Self-Incrimination: Inapplicable to Reconfinement Hearing
State v. Travis Joe Brimer, Jr., 2010 WI App 57; for Brimer: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
“The right against self-incrimination only applies at criminal proceedings or “other proceeding … where the answers might incriminate [the defendant] in future criminal proceedings.” Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 368 (1986) (citations omitted),” ¶7. Because a reconfinement hearing isn’t part of the criminal process,
Voluntary Statement: Following Voluntary Miranda Waiver
State v. Dionny L. Reynolds, 2010 WI App 56; for Reynolds: Russell D. Bohach; BiC; Resp. Br.
Statement voluntary, following multiple interviews while in custody on unrelated offense:
¶45 Balancing Reynolds’ personal characteristics against the totality of the police detectives’ conduct, we note, first and foremost, that Reynolds voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making his incriminating statement. Generally speaking,
Sentencing Guidelines: General Purpose – Retroactive Repeal, § 973.017(2)(a); Statutory Construction: § 990.04
State v. Thomas H.L. Barfell, 2010 WI App 61; for Barfell: Roberta A. Heckes; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.; App. Supp. Br.; Resp. Supp. Br.
Sentencing – Guidelines, General Purpose
¶7 While Barfell is correct that he “has a due process right ‘to be sentenced on the basis of true and correct information’ pertaining to ‘the offense and the circumstances of its commission … and the defendant’s personality,
Briefs – Issue-Selection, Generally
S.C. Johnson v. Milton E. Morris, 2010 WI App 6, PFR filed 12/30/09
Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 1:
Justice Robert Hansen once wrote the now familiar phrase that “[a]n appellate court is not a performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on an appeal.” State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555,