On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 220 Wis. 2d 396, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Sveum: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where the defendant sought admissibility of a statement by a non-testifying declarant on the basis that it was not offered for its truthfulness, but the statement would have probative value only if offered for truth of the matter asserted, it was inadmissible hearsay.

State v. William R. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Peterson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

The State provides no authority to support the trial court’s imposition of a requirement that, as a matter of law, expert testimony is necessary to establish a foundation for video images, and we are aware of none. Wisconsin case law does not impose such a requirement for the admission of still photographs.

State v. Gary Curtis, 218 Wis. 2d 550, 582 N.W.2d 409 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Curtis: Arthur B. Nathan

Issue/Holding:

Next, Curtis claims that the tapes admitted into evidence at trial were not properly authenticated. At trial, Poivey, a party to the conversations on the tapes, testified that the voices on the tapes were his and Curtis’. This type of voice identification is a valid avenue of authentication.

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Requiring any defendant to demonstrate that the marital relationship actually influenced the writer’s impressions and recommendations would present an insurmountable hurdle to any defendant attempting to challenge a PSI. The reasons for an agent’s impression may operate at a subjective level of which the report’s author is unaware.

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Our supreme court has acknowledged the importance of the PSI to the sentencing process. See State v. McQuay, 154 Wis.2d 116, 130-31, 452 N.W.2d 377, 383 (1990). The integrity of the sentencing process demands that the report be accurate,

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Suchocki claims that his due process right to a fair sentencing hearing was violated. Accordingly, he must demonstrate both bias in the PSI writer and that the sentencing process was prejudiced by such bias. See State v. Coulthard,

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

The use of a PSI is a matter within the court’s discretion. The court has discretion to order a PSI and to determine the extent to which it will rely upon the information in the PSI. State v. Skaff,

State v. Daron E. Maron, 214 Wis. 2d 384, 571 N.W.2d 454 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Maron: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

… We conclude that § 973.15(2), Stats., does not give the trial court authority to order that the sentence be served consecutive to jail time already being served as a condition of probation. …

…

Subsequent amendment to § 973.15,

State v. Scott Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Kiekhefer: Linda Hornik

Issue/Holding: The odor of burning marijuana from within a closed bedroom did not create exigent circumstances for the police, who did have permission to be in the house, to enter the bedroom:

According to Londre, they believed Kiekhefer was in possession of a large amount of marijuana.

State v. Gordon Hammer, 216 Wis. 2d 214, 576 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App 1997)
For Hammer: Charles W. Jones, Jr.

Issue: Whether juror unanimity is required for burglary, as to which felony was intended during the unlawful entry.

Holding:

In addressing Hammer’s unanimity claim, we engage in a two-step process. We must first determine whether this statute creates only one offense with multiple modes of commission or,