On Point blog, page 430 of 483
Constitutional Defenses – Notice of Charge – Vague Charging Period
State v. James D. Miller, 2002 WI App 197, PFR filed 8/2/02
For Miller: Matthew H. Huppertz, Craig Kuhary, Daniel P. Fay
Issue/Holding: The charging period of March 1, 1989, to March 31, 1993, was not too expansive to provide opportunity to prepare a defense, largely because of the victim’s youthfulness and vulnerable relationship (patient-therapist) to defendant, ¶31; and because the alleged offenses occurred during therapy sessions,
Defenses – Claim/Issue Preclusion — Prior Dismissal — SVP Proceeding
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act of sexual violence.
Holding:
¶22. Although Parrish’s preclusion argument presents an issue of first impression in Wisconsin,
Enhanced Penalties — Waiver of Objection to Sufficiency of Repeater Proof
State v. James O. Edwards, 2002 WI App 66, PFR filed 2/18/02
For Edwards: Glenn C. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether failure to object to exhibits (uncertified copy of judgment of conviction; DOC fax indicating prior periods of confinement) waived an argument that the state failed to prove Edwards’ repeater status.
Holding: Failure to object to documentation that facially establishes repeater status waives the issue of sufficiency of proof;
Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Elements
State v. Thomas P. Sterzinger, 2002 WI App 171
For Sterzinger: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue1: Whether fleeing, § 346.04(3) requires proof that the defendant knowingly “interfere(d) with or endanger(ed)” another.
Holding1: Scienter is required, but is limited to a single element — knowingly flee or attempt to elude — and doesn’t extend to “interfere with or endanger.” ¶¶7-11.
Issue2: Whether fleeing,
OWI – Implied Consent – Threat to Revoke Driver’s License Arrest, Not Coercive
Village of Little Chute v. Todd A. Walitalo, 2002 WI App 211, PFR filed 8/1/02
For Walitalo: Ralph A. Kalal
Issue/Holding:
¶11. However, the arresting officer, by reading the informing the accused form, simply stated the truth: If Walitalo refused to submit to a chemical test, his driving privileges would be revoked. This statement did not involve any deceit or trickery, but instead accurately informed Walitalo of his precise legal situation.
OWI – Implied Consent Law – Threat to Use Force
State v. Donald Marshall, 2002 WI App 73, PFR filed 2/28/02
For Marshall: Richard L. Zaffiro
Issue: Whether, after the OWI arrestee refused consent for a blood draw, the police could then obtain “consent” for the draw by threatening to use physical force.
Holding: Marshall’s argument that § 343.305(9)(a), by providing the exclusive police option for refusal, bans such a threat has been rejected by State v.
OWI – Due Process – pre-Refusal Hearing Revocation
State v. Michael J. Carlson, 2002 WI App 44, PFR filed 1/17/02
For Carlson: Christopher A. Mutschler
Issue: Whether Carlson was entitled to have his refusal charge dismissed with prejudice because his driver’s license was improperly revoked for nineteen days before he was granted a hearing.
Holding: Due process protections — with respect to a hearing before loss of particular interests — are afforded under Mathews v.
OWI – Implied Consent Law – Misleading Advice – Right of Refusal, § 343.305(9)
State v. Darin W. Baratka, 2002 WI App 288, PFR filed 10/20/02
For Baratka: Michael C. Witt
Issue/Holding:
¶12 Baratka claims that he was not properly informed of his choices and was therefore unable to understand his rights regarding chemical testing. In order for Baratka to prove he was not adequately informed, he must show:
1. Has the law enforcement officer not met,
OWI – Sentencing – Differential, County-Based Guidelines
State v. Roland Smart, 2002 WI App 240
For Smart: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether sentencing-guideline disparity for driving while intoxicated under guidelines adopted by local counties pursuant to § 346.65(2m) violates equal protection or due process.
Holding: Sentencing guideline disparities need be supported only by rational basis for equal protection purposes, as “(i)t is not a fundamental right to be free from deprivations of liberty as a result of arbitrary distinctions.”
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Car-Jacking (§ 943.23(1g)) and Operating without Owners Consent (§ 943.23(3))
State v. Prentiss M. McKinnie, 2002 WI App 82, PFR filed 3/14/02
For McKinnie: Bryan J. Borman, SPD, Waukesha Trial
Issue: Whether separate charges, of carjacking and operating the same motor vehicle without owner’s consent are permissible where, after allegedly taking the car, the defendant continued to drive it the next day.
Holding: Though these offenses are the same in law, under § 939.66(2r), the facts as alleged are distinct and therefore support separate charges in this particular instance:
¶11.