On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. William A. Silva, 2003 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/4/03
For Silva: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler, Donald E. Chewning

Issue/Holding:

¶29 …. Silva’s brother testified that on the day of the assault Silva attended a service that discussed the act of “sinning again.” Silva’s brother stated that Silva sat down during the discussion while everyone else remained standing. This behavior is consistent with the conduct of a person who has recently committed a crime and is admissible as such.

State v. Jesse H. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/24/03
For Swinson: Pamela Pepper

Issue/Holding: Greater statutory double jeopardy protection afforded drug prosecution under § 961.45 than non-drug prosecution under § 939.71 doesn’t violate equal protection:

¶55. We note that while Wis. Stat. § 939.71 adheres to the dual sovereignty doctrine, Wis. Stat. § 961.45 does not. We therefore conclude, as the supreme court did in Petty,

State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 WI 33
For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: A court of appeals holding in a case reversed by the supreme court on other grounds, so that this holding was neither “overruled, withdrawn, or modified,” continues to bind the court of appeals. ¶13.

The court of appeals had held under similar circumstances to Gary M.B.’s that defensive use didn’t trigger waiver, 

State v. Frederick Robertson, 2003 WI App 84
For Robertson: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where principal issue concerned the complainant’s credibility, indication first revealed after conviction that she had been treated for depression with psychotic features around the time of the incident required in camera inspection to determine whether her mental health records must be disclosed to the defense.

This case arrives at the unmapped intersection of postconviction discovery and privileged records.

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the witness testified outside the jury’s presence that there were none.

State v. Nathan T. Hall, 2002 WI App 108
For Hall: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School

Issue/Holding: Because the trial court failed to explain its reasoning, its sentence was an erroneous exercise of discretion. In particular, the trial court exceeded the PSI recommendation (107 years) by approximately 200 years, without explaining either the necessity for sentences so long “that Hall will never live long enough to serve them,”

State v. Richard N. Konkol, 2002 WI App 174
For Konkol: Brian Hough

Issue/Holding: The proper test for admissibility of rebuttal evidence isn’t whether it could have been admitted in, or would have been useful to, the state’s case-in-chief, but whether it meets new facts put in by the defendant. ¶¶18-19.

¶18      Thus, the only other basis for barring the witness would be that she was not a bona fide rebuttal witness. 

State v. Zan Morgan, 2002 WI App 124
For Morgan: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether Morgan was in custody, for Miranda purposes, after being handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car.

Holding: Custody is determined under “the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as: the defendant’s freedom to leave; the purpose, place, and length of the interrogation; and the degree of restraint.”

State v. Howard C. Carter, 2002 WI App 55
For Howard: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Although review of a trial court’s determination of subjective (non-)bias of a prospective juror is generally deferential, here review is independent “because this is one of those rare situations where the prospective juror’s unambiguous response, rather than his demeanor, is the basis of his subjective bias.” ¶10. And, because the juror openly admitted his bias,

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App 98
For Chu: Andrew Shaw, Rex R. Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶41. In his reply brief, Chu offers no response to the State’s argument concerning information about Wales. Unrefuted arguments are deemed admitted. See Charolais Breeding Ranches v. FPC Secs. Corp., 90 Wis. 2d 97, 109, 279 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1979). Accordingly, we reject his argument without further discussion