On Point blog, page 187 of 215
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised Release – Revocation – Uncharged Rule Violation – Right to Notice
State v. Keith Alan VanBronkhorst, 2001 WI App 190
For VanBronkhorst: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether revocation of supervised release from a ch. 980 commitment was properly based on an uncharged rule violation.
Holding:
¶9 … “(P)rocedural due process protections afforded in probation or parole revocation proceedings apply to supervised release revocation proceedings under ch. 980. “…¶15. Notice to comply with due process requirements must be given sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings so that a defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to prepare.
SVP – Postdisposition – Right to independent expert
State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether the commitment subject has a right to present an independent medical report at a petition for discharge probable cause hearing, § 980.09(2)(a).
Holding: Although a Ch. 980 patient does have the right submit an independent medical report to the court, ¶¶6-13, Wis Stat..
Waiver of Appeal — Arguably Meritorious Appellate Issue that Would Have Incurred Risk
State ex rel. Richard A. Ford (II) v. Holm, 2006 WI App 176, PFR filed 9/11/06; on appeal following remand in 2004 WI App 22 (“Ford I”)
For Ford: James R. Troupis
For Amicus: Joseph N. Ehmann, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Given circuit court findings “that Ford affirmatively elected not to pursue any issue that would result in the withdrawal of his plea and the possible reinstatement of a second sexual assault charge,” he is deemed to have knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to pursue a postconviction challenge to his guilty plea;
Sentencing – Review – Articulation of Primary Factors in Setting PED
State v. David S. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, 237 Wis.2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126
For Leighton: Daniel Snyder
Issue/Holding: In setting parole eligibility date trial court need not separately refer to primary factors used in imposing sentence. ¶¶52-53.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Innocence – Offer to Take DNA Test
State v. Miguel Angel Santana-Lopez, 2000 WI App 122, 237 Wis.2d 332, 613 N.W.2d 918
For Santana-Lopez: Rex Anderegg
Issue: Whether a sexual assault defendant’s pretrial offer to take a DNA test is relevant as consciousness of innocence.
Holding: “(A)n offer to undergo DNA analysis [is] relevant to the state of mind of the person making the offer — so long as the person making the offer believes that the test or analysis is possible,
Functional Equivalent of Interrogation
State v. Ondra Bond, 2000 WI App 118, 237 Wis. 2d 633, 614 NW2d 552, affirmed by equally divided vote, 2001 WI 56, 243 Wis. 2d 476, 627 N.W.2d 484
For Bond: William Coleman; Janet Barnes; Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether, following arrest but before administration of Miranda rights, an officer’s response to the suspect’s asking why he’d been arrested was the functional equivalent of interrogation and therefore in violation of Miranda.
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Doubtful Fairness: Belief Police More Credible
State v. Scot A. Czarnecki, 2000 WI App 155, 237 Wis.2d 794, 615 N.W.2d 672
For Czarnecki: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court should have granted the defense motion to remove a prospective juror who acknowledged believing that police officers would be more credible than other witnesses.
Holding: Juror bias is reviewed with deference to the trial court’s resolution. Because police credibility was never at issue,
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Doubtful Fairness: Equivocal Statement
State v. Nathaniel A. Lindell, 2000 WI App 180, 238 Wis.2d 422, 617 N.W.2d 500, affirmed on other grounds, State v. Nathaniel A. Lindell, 2001 WI 108
For Lindell: Russell L. Hanson; Timothy J. Gaskell
Issue: Whether the prospective juror’s allowing, “I think I could” make a fair determination, established subjective bias.
Holding: The trial court’s ruling of no subjective bias isn’t clearly erroneous.
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification — Doubtful Fairness, Generally: Defer to Trial Court — Need for Precise Questioning
State v. Marquis O. Gilliam, 2000 WI App 152, 238 Wis.2d 1, 615 N.W.2d 660
For Gilliam: Robert B. Rondini
Issue: Whether the trial court’s denial of a motion to remove a juror based on subjective bias was clearly erroneous.
Holding: The issue of a juror’s subjective bias is reviewed deferentially to the trial court’s resolution. Though this case is different from prior cases — here, “whether the juror has expressed a prejudice or predilection in the first instance”
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification — Doubtful Fairness: Equivocal Statement — Deference to Trial Court Finding
State v. Jimmie R.R., 2000 WI App 5, 232 Wis.2d 138, 606 N.W.2d 196
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to strike for cause a potential juror who was equivocal on his ability to be fair.
Holding: The trial court did not err in finding no subjective bias.
When asked if he could listen to the evidence and apply the law,