On Point blog, page 9 of 10
Guilty Pleas – Suppression Appeal (§ 971.31(10)) – Harmless Error Analysis
State v. Jerome G. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, 233 Wis. 2d 508, 608 N.W.2d 376
For Semrau: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether (assumed) erroneous refusal to suppress evidence was harmless on appeal following guilty plea, under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10).
Holding: Strength of admissible evidence, apart from unsuppressed evidence, placed Semrau in “significant risk of conviction,” so that there was no reasonable probability that the suppression ruling caused him to plead guilty,
§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Guilt — as Distinct from Misconduct Evidence
State v. Michael R. Bauer, 2000 WI App 206, 238 Wis. 2d 6887, 617 N.W.2d 902
For Bauer: Thomas Voss
Issue: Whether evidence that the defendant, while awaiting trial, solicited the murders of people who were going to testify against him was admissible.
Holding:
¶2 Bauer argues that the solicitation evidence was other acts evidence which was improperly admitted pursuant to Wis. Stat.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Silence in Face of Accusation
State v. Ondra Bond, 2000 WI App 118, 237 Wis. 2d 633, 614 N.W.2d 552, affirmed by equally divided court, 2001 WI 56.
For Bond: William Coleman; Janet Barnes, Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The prosecution may not use at trial the fact that a defendant stood mute in the face of an accusation. ¶27.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Victim’s Medical Records
State v. Frank M. Ruszkiewicz, 2000 WI App 125, 237 Wis. 2d 441, 613 N.W.2d 893
For Ruszkiewicz: Mark S. Rosen
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order production of the victim’s police and medical records, sought on the theory that they might show a condition that would cause her to bruise easily and, therefore, refute the element of force as demonstrated by her bruises.
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor — Failure to Comply with Express Terms of Sentencing Recommendation
State v. Robert D. Hanson, 2000 WI App 10, 232 Wis.2d 291, 606 N.W.2d 278
For Hanson: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether the prosecutor breached the plea bargain by failing to expressly recommend the agreed 10 year sentencing cap, on a 15-year exposure.
Holding: Even though the prosecutor did not expressly recite the 10-year cap, the parties had “referred generally to the sentencing recommendation provision of the plea agreement a number of times,”
Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor — Less Than Neutral Recitation of Recommendation
State v. Robert D. Hanson, 2000 WI App 10, 232 Wis.2d 291, 606 N.W.2d 278
For Hanson: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether the prosecutor undermined a 10-year sentencing cap by emphasizing that “this is an extremely violent case,” along with other aggravating factors.
Holding: By stressing to the trial court that she was standing by the plea agreement, “the prosecutor strongly affirmed the plea agreement and did not make any statements that expressly,
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Prior Resisting Arrest — Similarity to Charged Offense
State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530
For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro
Issue: Whether a prior act involving drunken resisting arrest was properly admitted into evidence.
Holding: The prior act was admitted on the permissible purposes of showing intent and absence of mistake; had probative value due to strong similarities to the current offense; and, given high probative value along with cautionary instruction,
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Inadmissible Propensity — Charge of Sexual Assault, Defense of Consent
State v. Luther Wade Cofield, 2000 WI App 196, 238 Wis. 2d 467, 618 N.W.2d 214
For Cofield: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, on a charge of sexual assault where the defense was consent, evidence of prior sexual assaults were properly admissible.
Holding:
¶11 In reviewing the list set forth in WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2), we reject each of the proper ‘other purposes’
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Presumptive MR
State v. Stuart D. Yates, 2000 WI App 224, 239 Wis.2d 17, 619 N.W.2d 132
For Yates: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the presumptive MR date of § 302.11(1g)(am) 1997-98 is a direct or collateral consequence of a guilty plea.
Holding: A court is required to advise a defendant only of direct consequences — which have definite, immediate, and largely automatic impact on range of punishment —
Impeachment — Witness’s Parole Eligibility Date
State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753
For Scott: Joseph E. Redding
Issue: Whether a defense witness was properly impeached with evidence that he was serving life in prison with no prospect for parole.
Holding: The witness’s attempt to admit the crimes and exonerate the defendant would have misled the jury absent revelation of his functional immunity stemming from his parole status: “where no practical,