On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Yancy D. Freland, 2011 WI App 80 (recommended for publication); for Freland: Michael D. Zell; case activity

Conviction for an out-of-state sex offense comparable to a misdemeanor in Wisconsin will be treated as a misdemeanor for sex offender registration purposes, § 301.45(6).

¶12      Wisconsin Stat. § 301.45(1d)(am)1. specifically defines has been “[f]ound to have committed a sex offense by another jurisdiction” to include a person who has been convicted “for a violation of a law of another state that is comparable to a sex offense.”[7] Taken as a whole,

Rock Tenn Company v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 2011 WI App 93 (recommended for publication); case activity

A worker’s compensation provision authorizing payment “for any future treatment” enacted after a work-related injury was incurred is remedial in nature and therefore can “be retroactively applied to award prospective treatment expenses.”

¶13      We reject Rock Tenn’s argument and conclude that LIRC reasonably held that Wis.

State v. Deshon C. Matthews, 2011 WI App 92 (recommended for publication); for Matthews: Paul G. Bonneson; case activity

Terry Stop – Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of Matthews, when police on patrol saw him wearing a ski mask and hoodie late at night in a high-crime area near a woman who was walking away form him and who appeared to be frightened.

State v. Marilee Devries, 2011 WI App 78 (recommended for publication); for Devries: Matthew S. Pinix; case activity

OWI – Repeater – Proof, Prior “Conviction”

Certified copies of proceedings in foreign jurisdictions established adequate proof of prior OWI “connvictions,” § 343.307(1)(d).

¶9        When Wisconsin’s driving laws provide for the enhancement of penalties for a current offense based on prior offenses, the State must present “‘competent proof’” of those earlier offenses.  

State v. Isaac Hughes, Sr., 2011 WI App 87 (recommended for publication); for Hughes: Benbow P. Cheesman, Jr.; case activity

Conviction for escape, § 946.42(3), may be sustained even if the jury never actually saw the judgment of conviction that landed the defendant in custody.

¶12      We agree with the trial court that, when considered in light of all the other evidence adduced at trial,

State v. Michael S. Hoseman, 2011 WI App 88 (recommended for publication); for Hoseman: Timothy M. Johnson; case activity

Hoseman is liable in restitution for damages to a rented house caused by his marijuana manufacturing operation. Restitution requires that there be a “direct victim” of the crime and a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the claimed damages, ¶16. Both requirements are satisfied.

Direct victim:

¶23      The cases Hoseman relies upon are inapposite under the facts of this case;

State v. Jeffrey D. Walli, 2011 WI App 86 (recommended for publication); for Walli: Chad A. Lanning; case activity

Trial court factual findings made from a combination of live testimony and video evidence are reviewed deferentially, under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review; the court rejects de novo review of the video recording. Here, it is a police squad video of a traffic stop, with the officer testifying (and the trial court finding) that Walli in fact crossed the center line,

State v. Andre D. Hansbrough, 2011 WI App 79(recommended for publication); for Hansbrough: Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity

Verdict Forms – Harmless Error

Failure to provide a not guilty verdict option with a lesser included offense instruction is, although error, not structural but is instead subject to analysis for harmlessness, ¶¶10-17.

¶9        At the outset, we reject Hansbrough’s contention that there must always be a not guilty verdict form for each guilty verdict form. 

State v. Calvin Jerome Pirtle, 2011 WI App 89(recommended for publication); for Pirtle: Christopher J. Cherella; case activity

Consent to Search – Georgia v. Randolph

Pirtle’s failure to object to the police presence allowed them to act on the co-tenant’s consent to a warrantless search under Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006):

¶15      In Randolph,

State v. Eliseo Peralta, 2011 WI App 81(recommended for publication); for Peralta: Martin J. Pruhs; case activity

Conspiracy, § 939.31 – “Overt Act”

The “overt act” element of conspiracy, though it must go “beyond mere planning and agreement,” may be “virtually any act,” even if “insignificant,” ¶¶19-21. Thus, Peralta’s “communication to an undercover police detective that a large quantity of cocaine was ready for immediate delivery”