On Point blog, page 474 of 489
OWI – implied consent law, application where driver not under arrest
State v. Jack E. Thurk, 224 Wis.2d 662, 592 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thurk: Christopher A. Mutschler
Holding: Following a vehicular homicide the culpable driver voluntarily accompanied an officer to the station and submitted to a chemical blood test. He seeks suppression, on the ground that he was denied a request for a breathalyzer as an alternate test. The COA rejects the argument, holding that he had no right to the alternate test because he wasn’t under arrest.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: criminal charge and juvenile discipline for same conduct
State v. Jamerrel Everett, 231 Wis.2d 616, 605 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Everett: Timothy T. Kay; Michael Patrick Cotter
Issue: Whether the prosecution constituted double jeopardy because the defendant had been disciplined for the same conduct by the juvenile institution.
Holding: Although prison discipline may carry punitive aspects, its principal purposes are institutional order and rehabilitation, State v. Fonder, 162 Wis.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: perjury – testimony during same proceeding, multiple counts
State v. Roger L. Warren, 229 Wis. 2d 172, 599 N.W.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Warren: Daniel F. Snyder
Holding: Warren’s perjured testimony at a single hearing dealing with a single general subject supports multiple perjury counts, because each charge dealt with different perjured details and is therefore “different in fact” if not law. In other words, “different evidence is required to establish that Warren responded falsely to the questions upon which”
Enhancer — Pleading — Charge Made in Information Controls Different Repeater Allegation in Complaint
State v. John J. Thoms, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thoms: Steven L. Miller
Issue/Holding: The court reverses a persistent repeater sentence, § 939.62(2m). Thoms was originally charged in the complaint with the standard 10-year sentence enhancement, § 939.62(1)(c)&(2), based on a prior felony theft conviction. However, the information changed the enhancement allegation to persistent offender, § 939.62(2m) – life without parole.
Due Process – Exculpatory evidence – failure to disclose – hand-swabbing results
State v. Andres DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999)
For DelReal: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Holding: The defense was denied exculpatory evidence when a detective testified that the defendant had not been swabbed for gunshot residue when in fact he had, with negative results.
Enhancer — § 961.48(3), Drug Offender — Prior for Paraphernalia
State v. Dawn C. Moline, 229 Wis. 2d 38, 598 N.W.2d 929 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Moline: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue/Holding:
By this decision, we hold that a prior conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia pursuant to § 961.573, STATS., qualifies as a prior offense under the repeat drug offender statute, § 961.48(3), STATS. … The statute is meant to include all prior convictions,
Costs – jail assessment – § 302.46(1) – fine or forfeiture required
State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte.
Issue/Holding: The jail assessment in §§ 302.46(1) & 814.60(2)(ag) is contingent on imposition of a fine or forfeiture.
Section 814.60(2)(ag), STATS., provides that “[i]n addition to any fine imposed, a defendant shall be required to pay any … [j]ail assessment imposed by s. 302.46(1).” Section 302.46(1),
Costs – payment for sexual assault examination
State v. Daniel E. Rohe, 230 Wis.2d 294, 602 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Rohe: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether costs for a sexual assault examination were properly taxable, where the examination neither produced any results nor was used at trial.
Holding: Because the examination was part of the state’s investigation and prosecution; and because the examiners were on the state’s witness list,
Costs – allocated per count, § 814.60(1)
State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte
Issue/Holding: The $20 fee for the clerk of court under § 814.60(1) is allocated on a per-count, rather than per-case, basis.
Suppression Hearing – Burden of Production
State v. Frederick G. Jackson, 229 Wis. 2d 328, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Jackson: Allan D. Krezminski
Holding: Jackson failed his burden of production that the state violated his rights (more concretely: unless the hospital personnel were acting as state’s agents, there would be no governmental interference with his rights under the fourth amendment).