On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391, 395, 546 N.W.2d 570 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Munoz: Craig M. Kuhary

Issue/Holding:

Here, as in Lederer, the defense offered nothing more than “the mere possibility” that the records “might produce some evidence helpful to the defense.” Lederer, however, was decided before Shiffra. The broad language of Shiffra-“that the sought-after evidence is relevant and may be helpful to the defense,” 

State v. Robert L. Myers, Jr., 199 Wis. 2d 391, 544 N.W.2d 609 (Ct. App. 1996)

Issue/Holding:

We agree with the State that the potential for a future ch. 980, Stats., commitment was a collateral consequence of Myers’ guilty plea. Trial courts may not accept a guilty plea unless they are satisfied that the plea is knowing and voluntary. State v. James, 176 Wis.2d 230,

State v. Wilfred E. Tobias, 196 Wis. 2d 537, 538 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1995)
For Tobias: Barbara A. Cadwell

Issue/Holding: That suspect had learning disability, required medication to deal with visual hallucinations but was off his meds during the interrogation not enough to establish voluntariness.

State ex rel. Hill v. Zimmerman, 196 Wis. 2d 419, 538 N.W.2d 608 (Ct. App. 1995)

Issue/Holding:

Section 972.15(2), Stats., provides, “When a presentence investigation report has been received the judge shall disclose the contents of the report to the defendant’s attorney … prior to sentencing.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, before sentencing, a defendant has an absolute right to obtain the presentence report. In such a setting,

State v. Nakia N. Hayes, 196 Wis. 2d 753, 540 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1995)
For Hayes: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Next, Hayes argues that innocent persons could become caught up in the “all occupants” provisions of the search warrant. This obviously is true. But it does not necessarily invalidate the warrant. The test is not whether innocent persons might be present on the premises,

State v. Wilfred E. Tobias, 196 Wis.2d 53, 538 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1995)
For Tobias: Barbara A. Cadwell

Issue/Holding1:

The primary concern in attenuation cases is whether the evidence objected to was obtained by exploitation of a prior police illegality or instead by means sufficiently attenuated so as to be purged of the taint. Anderson, 165 Wis.2d at 447-48, 477 N.W.2d at 281.