On Point blog, page 404 of 484
Defenses – Claim Preclusion – Discovery Violation in Prior, Dismissed Case Involving Same Charge
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04
For Miller: Robert T. Ruth
Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel didn’t prevent admissibility of evidence excluded as discovery sanction in prior, dismissed but then reissued action, where judge who dismissed prior action after imposing sanction contemplated that the excluded evidence would not be barred in a new proceeding, ¶¶31-33.
OWI – Evidence – Intoximeter EC/IR – Approval of Instrument by DOT
State v. Larry N. Winsand, 2004 WI App 86, PFR filed 4/12/04
For Winsand: Ralph A. Kalal
Issue: Whether results of an Intoximeter EC/IR breath test was inadmissible because approval of this testing instrument by the chief of the DOT chemical test section involved standards that should have been but were not promulgated as administrative rules under ch. 227.
Holding:
¶7.
OWI — Implied Consent, Driver’s Request for Additional Test, §§ 343.305(4) and (5)
State v. James A. Schmidt, 2004 WI App 235
For Schmidt: Daniel S. Diehn
Issue: Whether § 343.305(5)(a) requires that the driver request an additional test after the police have administered the primary test and, if not, whether Schmidt’s pre-blood draw request for a breathalyzer was properly rejected.
Holding:
¶11. Although Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) and (5) use the term “alternative test,”
OWI — Second or Subsequent Offense, Prior Conviction – Foreign Case Resulting in “Court Supervision”
State v. Arthur C. List, 2004 WI App 230, PFR filed 12/22/04
For List: Joseph L. Polito
Issue: Whether an Illinois OWI charge resulting in court supervision is a “conviction” within the meaning of § 343.307(1)(d).
Holding:
¶5. List contends that under Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) only OWI offenses that result in formal conviction as defined by the laws of a foreign state count for the purpose of charging a Wisconsin OWI suspect.
OWI – Preliminary Breath Test, § 343.303 – Refusal, Support for Reasonable Suspicion for Blood Draw
State v. Christopher M. Repenshek, 2004 WI App 229, PFR filed 12/17/04
For Repenshek: Stephen E. Mays
Issue/Holding: Refusal to submit to a PBT may support a conclusion of reasonable suspicion for a blood draw:
¶25. Key to understanding our analysis is understanding that Wis. Stat. § 343.303 does not contain a general prohibition on police requesting a PBT. Rather, the statute only imposes a limitation on the use of a PBT result in a particular situation,
OWI — Implied Consent — Non-English Speaking Driver
State v. Ibrahim Begicevic, 2004 WI App 57
For Begicevic: Donna J. Kuchler
Issue: Whether reading the “Informing the Accused” form in English to a non-English speaking driver was an unreasonable way of conveying required implied consent warnings.
Holding:
¶21. Kennedy did not attempt to obtain an interpreter. When Kennedy read the Informing the Accused in English, Gasse did not translate the form verbatim nor did he make an effort to explain the rights in the form in German to Begicevic.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Burglary (Intent to Steal) While Armed, § 943.10(2)(a) (1997-98) and Burglary (Intent to Steal) While Committing Battery, § 943.10(2)(d) (1997-98)
State v. Shawn A. Beasley, 2004 WI App 42, PFR filed 3/26/04
For Beasley: Robert Ruth
Issue: Whether charges and convictions for burglary while armed (§ 943.10(2)(a)) and burglary while committing battery (§ 943.10(2)(d)) are multiplicitous.
Holding:
¶5. We reject Beasley’s challenge for two reasons. First, the subsections of Wis. Stat. § 943.10(2) do not define penalty enhancers, they define distinct crimes.
Double Jeopardy – Prosecutorial Misconduct: Vindictiveness – Adding New Charges After Postconviction Relief
State v. Clyde Baily Williams, 2004 WI App 56, federal habeas denied, Williams v. Bartow, 481 F.3d 492 (7th Cir 2007)
For Williams: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Issuing new charges for “a completely separate and distinct criminal episode” after the grant of appellate relief does not give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness:
¶45 … As Humphrey [v.
Double Jeopardy: “Manifest Necessity” for Mistrial Where “Counsel Aired Improper and Highly Prejudicial Evidence Before Jury”
State v. Clyde Baily Williams, 2004 WI App 56, federal habeas denied, Williams v. Bartow, 481 F.3d 492 (7th Cir 2007)
For Williams: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶22. We begin by addressing Williams’ double jeopardy claim. He submits that the trial court failed to exercise “sound discretion” in declaring a mistrial after his counsel had asked a State witness,
Due Process – Exculpatory Evidence – Deferred-Judgment Probationary Status, Prosecutorial Duty to Disclose, § 971.23(1)(f)
State v. Richard G. White, 2004 WI App 78, (AG’s) PFR filed 4/1/04
For White: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:
¶23. Under Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(f), a prosecutor must, upon request, disclose to the defense “[t]he criminal record of a prosecution witness which is known to the district attorney.” A prosecutor, however, has an affirmative duty to make reasonable inquiry and may not assert that he or she did not know of those things within the ambit of § 971.23 that could have been reasonably discovered.