On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Ralph H. Davis, 2011 WI App 74 (recommended for publication); for Davis: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Warrantless Entry – Curtilage – Implied Invitation Doctrine

¶9      The protections of the Fourth Amendment extend beyond the walls of the home to the “curtilage.” Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984). “[C]urtilage is the area to which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a [person]’s home and the privacies of life,

Adam Martine v. Quentin J. Williams, 2011 WI App 68 (recommended for publication); case activity

¶13      Prior to last year, this court applied a general rule regarding court of appeals’ cases reversed by the supreme court that “holdings not specifically reversed on appeal retain precedential value.”  Blum v. 1st Auto & Cas. Ins. Co., 2010 WI 78, ¶44, 326 Wis. 2d 729, 786 N.W.2d 78 (citation omitted).  

State v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. / State v. Price T. Hunt, 2011 WI App 61, affirmed 2012 WI 72 (recommended for publication); for Gilbert: William J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Hunt:  Eric James Van Schyndle, Leah Stoecker, Allison E. Cimpl-Wiemer; case activity (Gilbert), case activity (Hunt); affirmed, 2012 WI 72

SVP – Pre-Commitment Return to DOC Custody

¶1        … 

State v. Robby D. Kuenzi, 2011 WI App 30; for Rory Kuenzi: Thomas W. Johnson; for Robby Kuenzi: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Animal Cruelty, § 951.02

Cruel mistreatment of non-captive wild animals – in this case, deer intentionally rammed by snowmobiles, concededly cruel acts – may be prosecuted under § 951.02, whether or not the acts are specifically regulated by chapter 29 hunting restrictions. 

State v. James M. Drown, 2011 WI App 53; for Drown: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

As a matter of law, equitable estoppel doesn’t bar prosecution of a crime. After pleading guilty to Shawano County charges related to an abduction and assault, Drown was charged in Oconto based on the same incident. The trial court granted a defense motion to dismiss on the ground of equitable estoppel,

State v. Winston B. Eison, 2011 WI App 52; for Eison: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Preservation of Issue – Motion in Limine

Eison objected to introduction of evidence of his arrest on an unrelated offense via motion in limine, which the trial court granted. At trial, however, the court allowed the State to introduce this evidence. Eison didn’t need to lodge additional objection to preserve the issue for review.

State v. Derek J. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28; for Copeland: David Leeper; case activity

Trial court has discretion under § 906.15(3) to order an attorney not to discuss with a sequestered witness who hasn’t yet testified the testimony of other witnesses; this authority extends to barring counsel from providing the sequestered witness with a transcript of prior-witness testimony. The trial court in this instance misperceived a lack of such authority,

Shirley Anderson v. Northwood School District, 2011 WI App 31; case activity

¶7 n. 3:

Northwood cites a circuit court decision from another case as persuasive authority, correctly noting that such a citation does not violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3), which prohibits citing unpublished appellate cases decided before July 1, 2009.  However, Northwood then emphasizes we affirmed the circuit court, provides citation to the 2005 unpublished appellate court decision,

State v. Jason L. Miller, 2011 WI App 34; for Miller: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Miller BiC; State Resp.; Reply

If the stun belt (or other restraint) isn’t visible to the jury, the trial court need not consider its necessity before requiring that the defendant wear it during trial. “Because there is no evidence that the jury could see the stun belt,

State v. Dennis C. Strong, 2011 WI App 43; for Strong: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence that Strong possessed pails filled with methyl ethyl ketone (i.e., acetone, or paint thinner), with bare electrical wires running through the pails and attached to a wall outlets, held sufficient to establish guilt for possessing improvised explosive device, § 941.31(2)(b). The court rejects the arguments that the material was flammable rather than “explosive,”