On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266

Issue: Whether the right of a parent imprisoned  in the federal system to “meaningfully participate” in a TPR proceeding was violated when he was not physically produced in court but, instead, was limited to telephonic participation.

Holding: Where various mechanisms could have been utilized to produce the father yet weren’t attempted, and the telephone hook-up was, under the circumstances,

State v. Daniel D. King, 2005WI App 224
For King: Scott D. Obernberger

Issue/Holding: The confrontation clause requires that the hearsay declarant be unavailable to testify at trial “and, critically, that the State make a ‘good-faith effort’ to produce the declarant at trial,” ¶6. The trial court erred in determining that the declarant was truly unavailable:

¶16 First, the State conceded that its process-server had Shelia J.’s wrong address for seven of the attempts at service.

State v. Daniel D. King, 2005 WI App 224
For King: Scott D. Obernberger

Issue/Holding: An interview by a detective of the victim at a hospital shortly after the charged assault, admitted into evidence as an excited utterance, is deemed “testimonial” (and, therefore, inadmissible under the confrontation clause) because it involved “response(s) to ‘structured police questioning,’” ¶18.

Result seems unassailable in light of Hammon v.

State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250
For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne

Issue/Holding:

¶13      The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution prevent the state from trying a defendant multiple times for the same offense. [4] “[G]iven the importance of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy,

State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80
For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1: Hassel’s custodial statement, “I don’t know if I should talk to you” was ambiguous and therefore triggered no duty to terminate the interrogation, ¶¶16-19.

The court of appeals purported to follow Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), which holds that the police have no duty to clarify an ambiguous assertion of rights made after clearly waiving them.

State v. Xavier J. Rockette, 2005 WI App 205
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶24     We conclude that Rockette did not waive his Miranda rights. Rockette does not argue that Chausee did anything to coerce his confession. Indeed, the purpose of Rockette’s cooperation at the interview, which his own counsel set up, was to increase his chances of securing some leniency from the State.

State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80
For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Hassel’s noncustodial statement, “I can’t talk to you,” did not amount to a Miranda-protected assertion of rights, largely because such rights can’t be invoked “anticipatorily,” ¶¶8-15. (State v. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224, 325 N.W.2d 703 (1982) distinguished as a rule of evidence safeguarding against substantive use at trial of prearrest silence.)

State v. Charles W. Mark, 2005 WI App 62, affirmed, 2006 WI 78
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶14 … (I)f probationers are required to choose between answers that will incriminate them in pending or subsequent criminal prosecutions and loss of their conditional liberty as a price for exercising their right to remain silent, the statements are compelled. 

Arents v. ANR Pipeline Co., 2005 WI App 61

Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 2:

Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d) and (e) (2001-02) requires the parties to provide in their briefs separate sections for their “statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review” and argument. In their appeal, the Landowners have, inappropriately, interspersed legal argument and “spin” into what should have been an objective recitation of the factual occurrences of this case.

State v. Christine M. Quackenbush /  State v. Michael D. Lee, 2005 WI App 2
For Quackenbush: Tyler J. Tripp
For Lee: Thomas F. Locante, SPD, La Crosse Trial
For Amicus: Joseph N. Ehmann, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether, in light of State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, the court of appeals retains any authority under § 809.82 to extend the time for filing a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief.