On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Donald Odom, 2006 WI App 145
For Odom: Eileen Miller Carter; J.C. Moore, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue/Holding: A trial court is not required to follow the sentencing guidelines, but only to explain a departure; the trial court’s explanation for departure (defendant’s lengthy record and reoffending upon release from confinement) was an adequate explanation, ¶26.

State v. Gerald L. Lynch, Jr., 2006 WI App 231, PFR filed 11/6/06
For Lynch: David R. Karpe

Issue: Whether the sentencing court’s reliance on a television interview of the defendant, which led the court to criticize the defendant as “self-serving” rather than remorseful, violated the due process right to be sentenced on accurate information.

Holding:

¶24      We address first Lynch’s argument that the court had an obligation to give him advance notice that it was going to consider the television interview at sentencing. 

State v. Jeris M. Moore, 2006 WI App 162
For Moore : Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶8        The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred when it denied Moore ’s motion without an in camera review of the confidential juvenile records. We conclude that the trial court should have conducted an in camerareview to determine whether the contents of those records rendered the resulting sentence one that was based on inaccurate information.

State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48
For Olson: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination of a principal State’s witness was impermissibly curtailed when the trial court abruptly ended inquiry into whether the witness had threatened to cause the defendant (her ex-husband) “trouble” following his remarriage, where:

• The witness testified only with the aid of a translator and had obvious difficulty answering questions (“a witness’s comprehension affects our analysis of whether a trial court can cut-off cross-examination prematurely.

State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48
For Olson: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding:

¶11      Inquiry into a witness’s bias is always material and relevant. State v. Williamson, 84 Wis. 2d 370, 383, 267 N.W.2d 337, 343 (1978) (bias and improper motive of witness are never collateral). John Henry Wigmore has characterized cross-examination as “beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 5 Wigmore,

State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06; subsequent history: affirmed, 2007 WI App 252 (court assumes without deciding that statements were testimonial but holds that Rodriguez forfeited right to confrontation by intimidating witness from testifying), PFR denied 2/21/08
For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether statements to the police,

State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8
For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: “(S)pontaneous, unsolicited statements offered to police officers immediately following the trauma of [declarant’s] cousin’s arrest at gunpoint” were not “testimonial” and therefore did not violate Crawford, ¶¶51-56:

¶53      Adams initiated the interaction with the officers; the police did not seek her out. She approached the police officers after they had arrested her cousin at gunpoint.

State v. David Barton, 2006 WI App 18
For Barton: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether the expert opinion of a crime lab analyst, presenting his own conclusions about tests performed by a non-testifying analyst, violated confrontation.

Holding: 

¶16 Like the unit leader’s testimony in Williams, Olson’s testimony was properly admitted because he was a qualified unit leader presenting his individual,

State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 ( prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether the witness’s repeated claim of memory loss denied Rockette confrontation within the meaning of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

Holding:

¶24      Fensterer and Owens teach us that the key inquiry for Confrontation Clause purposes is whether the declarant is present at trial for cross-examination,

State v. Fred V. Vogelsberg, 2006 WI App 228 (Cert. petition filed, Case No. 06-1253)
For Vogelsberg: Timothy A. Provis

Issue1: Whether the holding of State v. Thomas, 150 Wis. 2d 374, 394, 442 N.W.2d 10 (1989) (witness may testify behind screen upon showing of necessity) survives Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).