On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Julio C. Bautista, 2009 WI App 100, PFR filed 7/16/09
For Bautista: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Section 961.45 bars successive drug prosecutions by dual sovereignties premised on the “same act” (or “conduct”), State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53. Although broader than the Blockburger “elements-only” test, this “same-conduct” test does not bar state prosecution for conspiracy to deliver marijuana following federal conviction for delivering cocaine.

State v. Chase E. Kaczmarski, 2009 WI App 117
For Kaczmarski: Harold L. Harlowe, David M. Gorwitz

Issue/Holding:

¶7        Forfeiture is a rule of judicial administration, and whether we apply the rule is a matter addressed to our discretion. [3] See Ford Motor Co. v. Lyons, 137 Wis. 2d 397, 417, 405 N.W.2d 354 (Ct. App. 1987).We generally do not consider arguments not raised in the circuit court.

 State v. Garrett L. Huff, 2009 WI App 92, PFR filed 6/3/09
For Huff: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding:

¶14       As we have seen, the trial court did not require its court reporter to take down the tapes as they were being played. This was error. See State v. Ruiz-Velez, 2008 WI App 169, ___ Wis. 2d ___,

State v. Willie B. Cole, 2008 WI App 178
For Cole: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue/Holding:

¶25      …  If a suspect requests counsel at any time during the interview, he or she is not subject to further questioning until a lawyer has been made available or the suspect himself or herself reinitiates conversation. …

¶26      The Fifth Amendment/ Miranda right to counsel during custodial interrogations is not offense specific. 

State v. Pablo Ruiz-Velez, 2008 WI App 169
For Ruiz-Velez: Melnda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether audiovisual recordings of statements made by alleged victims and admitted into evidence under § 908.08(1) must be transcribed by the official court reporter.

Holding:

¶4        Wisconsin Stat. Rule 885.42(4) provides: “At trial, videotape depositions and other testimony presented by videotape shall be reported.” As we have seen,

Waukesha Co. DHHS v. Teodoro E., 2008 WI App 16, District 2 (published)

Issue/Holding: A deported father’s participation in the TPR proceeding by a webcam system was “meaningful,” given that he could see and hear witnesses, be seen by the court, and communicate privately with counsel and with aid of an interpreter, ¶¶10-19.

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 (telephone hookup not functional equivalent of personal presence,

Manitowoc County HSD v. Allen J., 2008 WI App 137

Issue/Holding:

¶1 Allen J. appeals from orders terminating his parental rights to his children, Brandon [1] and Stephanie J. He argues that he was deprived of his right to a jury trial because the court, rather than the jury, answered one of the verdict questions on an element of parental unfitness. Allen’s counsel had stipulated that the element was satisfied,

Oneida Co. DSS v. Therese S., 2008 WI App 159

Grounds

Issue/Holding: Informing the parent of potential “dispositions in a general sense” is not enough to satisfy § 48.422(7)(a):

¶16      Thus, at the very least, a court must inform the parent that at the second step of the process, the court will hear evidence related to the disposition and then will either terminate the parent’s rights or dismiss the petition if the evidence does not warrant termination.

State v. Willie B. Cole, 2008 WI App 178
For Cole: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue/Holding: “Under the above case law, it is clear that, if Cole did invoke his Fifth Amendment/Miranda right to counsel when he was arrested on the battery charge, then the statement he gave Officer Riley while still in custody is inadmissible even if Cole’s waiver of Miranda rights in that interview was otherwise valid,”

State v. Willie B. Cole, 2008 WI App 178
For Cole: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue/Holding:

¶38      The parties have not provided, and we have not discovered, any case that addresses the burden of proof in a factual context similar to this—where the defendant asserts he previously invoked his right to counsel as a basis for invalidating a later waiver. [9] However, we are persuaded that placing the burden on the State to show a prior waiver of this right,