On Point blog, page 18 of 18
Double Jeopardy – Prosecutorial Misconduct: Vindictiveness – More Onerous Plea Offer After Defendant Obtains Relief
State v. Peter G. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281, PFR filed 11/14/02
For Tkacz: Mark S. Rosen
Issue/Holding: Even assuming that the law of vindictive prosecution (presumption of vindictiveness attaches to less favorable prosecutorial action following successful appeal) applies to failure to re-offer same plea bargain following reversal of conviction, the facts would not support vindictiveness. The prosecutor offered a less favorable resolution because he had additional evidence and a stronger case,
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Harassment Injunction (§ 813.125(4)) Not Lesser Offense of Harassment (§ 947.013(1r))
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2002 WI App 105, PFR filed 5/10/02
For Sveum: Ian A.J. Pit
Issue/Holding: Violation of harassment injunction isn’t lesser offense of harassment, each requiring proof of distinct element. ¶¶23-28. (Court stressing, in particular, that for harassment defendant need only be “subject” to injunction but not actually violate it. ¶25.)
SVP – Habeas Challenge to Commitment – Venue
State ex rel Edwin C. West v. Bartow, 2002 WI App 42
For West: Leonard D. Kachinsky
Issue: Whether the court had discretion to order change of venue from Winnebago (county of current SVP confinement) to Milwaukee (county of commitment), on habeas challenge to the commitment.
Holding: Venue was proper in Winnebago under § 801.50(4)(b) (where petitioner is being restrained); the trial court’s transfer mistakenly relied on § 801.50(4)(a) (where petitioner was convicted or sentenced,
SVP- Trial: Evidence — Actuarial Instruments
State v. Bernard G. Tainter, 2002 WI App 296, PFR filed 12/23/02
For Tainter: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The trial court properly exercised discretion in admitting into evidence actuarial instruments (by determining that they were of the type commonly relied on by experts to assess sex offender risk; and by allowing Tainter to cross-examine on the instruments). ¶20. In Wisconsin, trial courts have a limited “gatekeeper”
Waiver of Objection: Stipulation
State v. Ronald J. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, PFR filed 1/2/02
For Frank: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether defendant waived review of objection to admissibility of misconduct evidence by entering into a “Wallerman” stipulation.
Holding: A stipulation under State v. Wallerman, 203 Wis. 2d 158, 552 N.W.2d 128 (Ct. App. 1996) (an element is conceded and the other-act isn’t admitted) waives the issue of admissibility:
¶5.
Defendant’s Presence at Postconviction Hearing
State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02
For Polak: Philip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding: A defendant need not be produced for a postconviction hearing where there are no substantial issues of fact to resolve. ¶22.
Mootness — Delinquency — Expired Dispositional Order
State v. Stephen T., 2002 WI App 2
For Stephen T.: Raymond M. Dall’Osto
Issue: Whether appeal of a juvenile delinquency adjudication is rendered moot by expiration of its dispositional order.
Holding: No, at least in this instance: certain facets of the order (DNA sample; sex offender registration) survive, and appellate review will therefore have a practical effect. ¶11. (The court doesn’t say whether its mootness holding is limited to offenses that incur these particular consequences.) Moreover,
SVP – Sufficiency of Evidence – Volitional Capacity
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Although evidence of volitional impairment is required and in this bench trial the trial court erred in commenting to the contrary, ¶35, the court in fact found the existence of such evidence, ¶36.