On Point blog, page 88 of 215
Waiver of Issue: Jury Instruction – Failure to Object to Limiting Instruction
State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed
For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr.
Issue/Holding: Failure to object to the wording of a limiting instruction (limiting jury’s use of certain evidence to impeachment rather than substantive evidence of guilt) waived the right to challenge its efficacy, ¶¶34-36.
The court possesses discretionary authority to review and reverse in the interest of justice but “Cockrell does not contend that the real controversy was not tried because of the challenged jury instruction,” ¶36 n.
Binding Authority — Published Wisconsin Court of Appeals Opinion – Review by Supreme Court
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245
For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Review of a published court of appeals’ decision by the supreme court leaves intact any portion of the opinion not reversed, ¶13 n. 4, citing State v. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, ¶40.
Jones itself holds:
We agree with the State that this exact claim has already been rejected in State v.
Binding Authority – Dicta, Generally
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2007 WI App 174, affirmed, 2008 WI 85
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶26 The State argues that our supreme court’s decision in Hughes validates the officers’ hot pursuit entry in this case. In Hughes, the court held that the crime of possession of marijuana was serious enough to justify the warrantless entry of an apartment under the exigent circumstance of preventing the destruction of evidence.
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Review – Conclusive Presumption
State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31
For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger
Issue/Holding: Instructional error due to mandatory conclusive presumption wasn’t harmless:
¶28 As we have explained, the trial error consisted of an instruction that the jury must accept as true the elemental facts that Schultz acted inconsistently with the duties of her office and intended to obtain a dishonest disadvantage if the jury found that Schultz used state resources to promote a candidate or to raise money for political campaign purposes.
Review — Sentence After (Extended Supervision) Revocation — Reconfinement Sentence Imposed by Different Judge
State v. Twaun L. Gee, 2007 WI App 32
For Gee: Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Brandon E. Jones, 2005 WI App 259, ¶13, that the reconfinement judge need not review the original sentencing transcript was overruled by State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, ¶38:
¶14 In Brown,
Presentence Report — Bias of Author: Spouse of Another Agent Concurrently Responsible for Defendant’s Supervision
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding: The rule of State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997) (conflict of interest where PSI author married to defendant’s prosecutor) does not extend to situation where PSI author is married to another probation agent and both are jointly supervising the defendant:
¶5 We do not believe that the same inherent bias exists in the relationship between two supervising probation agents.
Presentence Report – Miranda Warnings
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding: Thexton wasn’t entitled to Miranda warnings “at the time the PSI was being prepared”:
¶8 Thexton also claims that Streekstra violated his Fifth Amendment rights when he interviewed him during the investigation. Thexton claims that Streekstra used the prior PSI as a basis for questioning him,
Presentence Report – Right to Counsel
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding: The agent’s use of a prior PSI during the interview of defendant for the current case did not trigger any additional right to counsel:
¶10 Thexton further argues that his right to counsel was violated because he was unable to consult with his attorney regarding the use of the prior PSI during the interview.
SVP Commitments – Evidence — Disposition Alternatives – Irrelevancy of DOC Supervision
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245
For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Evidence that SVP respondent would be under DOC supervision if not committed under ch. 980 properly excluded as irrelevant, ¶¶8-14 (“the fact of supervision is irrelevant to whether Budd is a sexually violent person under § 980.01(7),” ¶14).The court in essence follows its statement in State v. Charles W.
SVP Commitments – Evidence – “Screening Process” for 980 Candidates
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245
For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence as to the “screening process” for referring SVP cases, which had the effect of informing the jury that fewer than 5% of eligible sex offenders are selected for commitment proceedings.
Holding:
¶16 We need not conclude, as Budd urges,