On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. James L. Montroy, 2005  WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn

Issue/Holding1: Though information before the sentencing court was indisputably inaccurate, the court took remedial action by ordering that this information be stricken, and thus Montroy can’t satisfy his burden of showing actual reliance on inaccurate information. ¶¶9-11. (State v. Anderson, 222 Wis. 2d 403,

State v. Ryan E. Baker, 2005 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/17/05
For Baker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The plain text of § 969.02(6) mandates that bail money be used to satisfy court costs, with no room for discretionary return to the depositor rather than payment of costs, ¶¶7-9.

This is a misdemeanor, but the relevant felony statute, § 969.03(4),

State v. Harry L. Seymer, 2005 WI App 93
For Seymer: Andrea T. Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where the (pro se) sexual assault defendant’s attempt to cross-examine the complainant and principal witness was abruptly terminated by the trial court, purportedly because of the defendant’s “mocking tone” and “derisive behavior”; but where the record did not in any respect support these “subjective impressions,” “the underpinnings of the trial court’s decision to terminate cross-examination [are] unavailing,

State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243
For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall

Issue/Holding1: The confrontation clause doesn’t prohibit a witness from reading to the jury admissible medical records:

¶13      First, as we have seen, the certified medical records were received by the trial court without objection. Certainly, the jurors could have read the pertinent excerpts, and, also, the prosecutor or defense counsel could have read to the jury excerpts from those records.

State v. Boon Savanh, 2005 WI App 245
For Savanh: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding1: Statement of coconspirator during drug transaction, conveyed to jury via police informant buying drugs as part of controlled buy, not “testimonial”:

¶25      We do not think an objective witness would reasonably believe that Vongrasamy would have thought his informal telephone conversation with his roommate would be available for use at a later trial.

State v. Donavin Hemphill, 2005 WI App 248
N.B. The holding quoted below was overruled, in State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2007 WI 26, ¶24n. 8. In other words, “a spontaneous statement to a police officer” is not, as a matter of law, non-testimonial.
For Hemphill: Jeffrey Jensen

Issue/Holding: An out-of-court statement by a witness to police (responding to a report of “trouble” involving a “subject with a gun”) which pointed out the defendant (“Those are the ones.

State v. Kevin D. James, 2005 WI App 188
For James: Terry W. Rose

Issue/Holding: The mere fact that § 908.08 imposes a mandatory protocol (videotape admitted into evidence first; child called to testify afterward) violates neither confrontation, ¶¶10-14, nor separation-of-powers, ¶¶15-25, doctrines.This statutory procedure allows the State to introduce a child’s videotaped statement, with the child available for questioning at the defendant’s request.

State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs

Issue/Holding: Issue/Holding: Pretrial videotaped statement, § 908.08(5), doesn’t violate confrontation when the person actually testifies, ¶24.

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80
For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶15 n. 3:

Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court construed article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution as providing greater protection against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, State v.

State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250
For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne

Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ….” Article I, section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that “no person for the same offense may be put twice in jeopardy of punishment ….” Two recent decisions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have concluded that certain provisions of the state constitution provide greater protections than analogous provisions of the federal constitution.