On Point blog, page 372 of 484
Confrontation – Expert Testimony: Crime Lab Analyst, Opinion Based in Part on Another’s Testing
State v. David Barton, 2006 WI App 18
For Barton: Leonard D. Kachinsky
Issue: Whether the expert opinion of a crime lab analyst, presenting his own conclusions about tests performed by a non-testifying analyst, violated confrontation.
Holding:
¶16 Like the unit leader’s testimony in Williams, Olson’s testimony was properly admitted because he was a qualified unit leader presenting his individual,
Confrontation – Opportunity for Cross-Examination: Witness’s Claimed Loss of Memory
State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 ( prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether the witness’s repeated claim of memory loss denied Rockette confrontation within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Holding:
¶24 Fensterer and Owens teach us that the key inquiry for Confrontation Clause purposes is whether the declarant is present at trial for cross-examination,
Confrontation – Witness Testifying Behind Screen – Thomas Surviving Crawford
State v. Fred V. Vogelsberg, 2006 WI App 228 (Cert. petition filed, Case No. 06-1253)
For Vogelsberg: Timothy A. Provis
Issue1: Whether the holding of State v. Thomas, 150 Wis. 2d 374, 394, 442 N.W.2d 10 (1989) (witness may testify behind screen upon showing of necessity) survives Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Conflict of Interest – Representation of Defendant by Prosecutor in Prior Case – Generally
State v. Christopher M. Medina, 2006 WI App 76
For Medina: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue/Holding: A claim that the prosecutor represented the defendant in a prior case may be raised in a pretrial motion to disqualify the prosecutor, which requires a showing that “the subject matter of the two representations are ‘substantially related,’” ¶15, quoting State v. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281,
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Representation of Defendant by Prosecutor in Prior Case – Pretrial Motion to Disqualify, Timeliness
State v. Christopher M. Medina, 2006 WI App 76
For Medina: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue: Whether a motion to disqualify a prosecutor because of representation of defendant in a prior case, brought immediately before jury selection, may be deemed waived on timeliness grounds.
Holding:
¶24 We conclude the circuit court may, in the proper exercise of its discretion, deny a motion to disqualify a prosecutor under the substantial relationship standard if the motion is untimely.
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Representation of Defendant by Prosecutor in Prior Case – Postconviction Motion to Disqualify – Actual Conflict Required
State v. Christopher M. Medina, 2006 WI App 76
For Medina: Daniel P. Ryan
Issue/Holding:
¶33 The circuit court here accepted the district attorney’s testimony that he did not remember any conversation with Medina during the prior representation. It also found that the district attorney did not refer to any information at sentencing from the prior representation that was not a matter of public record.
Review – Factors – Gallion – Generally
State v. Chad W. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, PFR filed 3/13/06
For Ziegler: Kenneth P. Casey, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶32 We conclude that the trial court’s sentencing remarks satisfy Hall as to the reasons for the consecutive sentences and Gallion as to the reasons for the length of the sentence. As noted, the trial court engaged in a thorough and exhaustive examination of the relevant sentencing objectives and factors.
Sentencing – Applicability of TIS to Crime not Completed until Advent of TIS II
State v. Ronnie L. Thums, 2006 WI App 173
For Thums: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether an offense which was partially committed during the TIS-I regime but not completed until advent of TIS-II comes under the former or latter sentencing regime.
Holding:
¶11 Thums had not committed the crime of stalking with a dangerous weapon during TIS-I. He therefore did not become subject to the TIS-I penalties during TIS-I.
Review – Exercise of Discretion – Generally
State v. Jack W. Klubertanz, 2006 WI App 71, PFR filed 4/14/06
For Klubertanz: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶21 We conclude that the circuit court here properly exercised its sentencing discretion under the standards set forth in Gallion. The court identified the objectives it sought to achieve with the sentence it imposed: punishing Klubertanz, protecting the public,
Sentencing – Review – Factors – Gallion – Generally
State v. Chad W. Ziegler, 2006 WI App 49, PFR filed 3/13/06
For Ziegler: Kenneth P. Casey, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶23 The principal objectives of a sentence include, but are not limited to, the protection of the community, the punishment of the defendant, rehabilitation of the defendant, and deterrence to others. Id., ¶40. A sentencing court should indicate the general objectives of greatest importance and explain how,