On Point: Published 2001

State v. Terrance W. Walther, 2001 WI App 23, 240 Wis. 2d 619, 623 N.W.2d 205
For Walther: Raymond M. Dall’Osto, Kathryn A. Keppel

Issue: Whether the defendant’s motion for in camera inspection of the child sexual assault complainant’s confidential records should have been granted.

Holding:

¶11 Here, Walther established more than the mere possibility that the requested records ‘may be necessary to a fair determination of guilt or innocence.’

State v. Earl Steele III, 2001 WI App 34, 241 Wis. 2d 269, 625 N.W.2d 595
For Steele: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue: Whether felon in possession of firearm may be the underlying felony to burglary (entry with intent to commit felony), § 943.10(1)(a), when the defendant-felon was already in possession of the firearm before entry.

Holding: “(A) person commits a burglary when he or she unlawfully enters the premises with the intent to commit a felony while on the premises,

State v. Earl Steele, 2001 WI App 34, 241 Wis. 2d 269, 625 N.W.2d 595
For Steele: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue: Whether the colloquy on a guilty plea to burglary/intent-to-commit-felony must apprise the defendant of the specific felony.

Holding:

¶8                        The trial court chose to summarize WIS. STAT. § 943.10 during colloquy, in combination with questioning defense counsel.  Steele contends that this summary was inadequate,

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue:: Whether an expert witness’s testimony should have been struck retrospectively when it became known, after the proceeding had concluded, that he had lied about his credentials and background.

Holding:

¶33. We cannot conclude that the circuit court’s refusal to strike Thomalla’s testimony was improper.

State v. Anthony A. Parker, 2001 WI App 111

Issue: Whether transfer to an out-of-state prison is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.

Holding:

¶8. In addition, we agree with the State that transfer to an out-of-state prison is a collateral consequence of Parker’s plea of no contest….

¶9. We have held that collateral consequences include deportation, restitution, subsequent filing of a sexually violent person petition,

State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed
For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding:

¶31. The privilege against self-incrimination is guaranteed by art. I, § 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution and by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998). The use of a defendant’s silence for impeachment purposes has been long decided.

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the prosecutor properly cross-examined an alibi witness as to what the defendant had told him about his prior offense.

Holding:

¶21. Further, even if the 1992 conviction could have been properly admitted, using this evidence on cross-examination was improper. Other acts evidence is admitted for a specific purpose.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding.

Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … she was qualified to give her opinion on the ultimate issue.”

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the alleged victim’s entire testimony at prior proceedings was properly admitted into evidence, under prior consistent statement or rule of completeness rationales.

Holding:

¶25. The trial court admitted the entire prior testimony under two theories: (1) the testimony constituted prior consistent statements under Wis. Stat.

State v. Ludwig Guzman, 2001 WI App 54, 241 Wis. 2d 310, 624 N.W.2d 717
For Guzman: Robert E. Haney

Issue: Whether the trial court properly excluded a defense witness who had not been timely named as a witness.

Holding:

¶22 The record supports the trial court’s discretionary decision to exclude Rosado’s testimony. Guzman was aware of this witness from the date of the incident.