On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Clifford D. Bvocik, 2010 WI App 49; for Bvocik: James C. Murray

Prosecutorial Misconduct – Closing Argument

Improper prosecutorial closing argument—encouraging jury to draw false inference—requires new trial in interest of justice; State v. Robert H. Weiss, Jr., 2008 WI App 72, controlling:

¶1        State v. Weiss, 2008 WI App 72, ¶¶15-17, 312 Wis. 2d 382,

State v. Jeffrey A.W., 2010 WI App 29; for Jeffrey A.W.: Hans P. Koesser

Adequacy of Counsel Investigation

Counsel’s attempt to demonstrate the absence of herpes in the defendant—an issue central to this sexual assault prosecution—was, although a failure, not the product of deficient performance.

¶12  There is no question that trial counsel’s investigation yielded the wrong information. But that does not necessarily equate to deficient performance.

State v. Leneral Louis Williams, 2010 WI App 39; for Williams: Richard L. Zaffiro; Resp Br.; Reply Br.

Seizure – Some Restraint Necessary

¶16      The Fourth Amendment is not implicated until there has been a seizure. The Court in Terry described a seizure as “whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his [or her] freedom to walk away.” Id.

State v. Corey Kleser, 2009 WI App 43, PFR filed 4/9/09
For Kleser: Robin E. Dorman, SPD Milwaukee Trial; Debra Flynn-Parrino, Devon M. Lee, SPD, Milwaukee Juvenile

Issue/Holding:

¶46      Wisconsin Stat. § 970.032(2) makes no provision for the admission of hearsay at a reverse waiver hearing. Where a statute does not specifically authorize hearsay, it is generally prohibited, see Wis. Stat.

Monroe County DHS v. Luis R., 2009 WI App 109

Issue: Whether ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f), which requires likely serious emotional or physical damage to the child from continued parental custody, applies to placement outside the parental home when the TPR proceeding is initiated.
Holding:

¶18 The ICWA does not preempt the Wisconsin Children’s Code, and Wisconsin statutes can be harmonized with the federal law by applying any state law safeguards beyond those mandated by the ICWA.

State v. Colin G. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85
For Schloegel: Sarvan Singh

Issue/Holding: High school student Schloegel was not in custody for Miranda purposes, notwithstanding that he was frisked by police officer, compelled under school policy to consent to search of his car and asked, prior to formal arrest, incriminatory questions; analogy to State v. Dale Gruen, 218 Wis.

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: Defendant’s request to call parents so they could call attorney for him was an insufficiently unequivocal assertion of his right to counsel:

¶36      We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that even if we assume that the defendant made requests to call his parents so that they could call an attorney for him,

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: Where Miranda rights were properly given at the outset of the “first segment” of interrogation, re-administration of rights wasn’t necessary for “second segment,” several hours later, ¶¶24-28.

State v. Dione Wendell Haywood, 2009 WI App 178
For Haywood: Robert E. Haney

Issue/Holding: ¶1 n. 1:

Haywood’s notice of appeal mistakenly asserts that he also appeals “from … the postconviction motion dated December 2, 2008.”  First, Haywood’s appeal is from the circuit court’s order denying his motion, not from the motion.  Second, the circuit court’s order is dated December 1,

Waukesha County v. Genevieve M., 2009 WI App 173
For Genevieve M.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶ 2 n. 2:

The failure of the notice of appeal to correctly identify the final appealable document is not fatal to appellate jurisdiction. See Carrington v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 169 Wis. 2d 211,