On Point blog, page 12 of 14
§ 902.01(2), Judicial Notice — Generally
State v. Leonard A. Sarnowski, 2005 WI App 48
For Sarnowski: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶13. Trial courts may take judicial notice in limited areas-“fact[s] generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court,” or “fact[s] capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Wis. Stat. Rule 902.01(2). Significantly, a court may not take judicial notice unless the parties have at some point “an opportunity to be heard.”
§ 904.01, Relevance – Generally – FSTs
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36
For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke
Issue/Holding:
¶14. In Wisconsin, the general standard for admissibility is very low. Generally, evidence need only be relevant to be admissible. See Wis. Stat. § 904.02; State v. Eugenio, 219 Wis. 2d 391, 411, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998) (“All relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise provided by law.”).
§ 904.01, Relevance – Field Sobriety Test
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36
For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke
Issue/Holding: Field sobriety tests (alphabet and finger-to-nose tests; and heel-to-toe walk) “are observational tools, not litmus tests that scientifically correlate certain types or numbers of ‘clues’ to various blood alcohol concentrations,” ¶17. Thus, the officer’s observations of Wilkens’ performance isn’t treated “any differently from his other subjective observations of Wilkens, i.e., his red and glassy eyes,
§ 904.01, Relevance – Gun Possession, on Charges of Drug Trafficking While Armed
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey
Issue/Holding: On charges of drug trafficking while armed, possession of guns (along with flash suppressor and bulletproof vest) was admissible as relevant for purposes other than “bad character,” ¶¶35-39. (State v. Spraggin, 77 Wis. 2d 89, 252 N.W.2d 94 (1977) and State v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis.
Plea Agreements — Judicial Participation
State v. Antoine T. Hunter, 2005 WI App 5
For Hunter: James R. Lucius
Issue: Whether the trial court’s observation to defendant, following denial of an assertedly “dispositive” suppression motion, that acquittal was “unlikely,” but that “coming forward and admitting your guilt” would provide “the opportunity to get some credit,” amounted to judicial participation in plea bargaining as banned by State v. Corey D. Williams,
Plea Agreements — Partial Withdrawal Doesn’t Necessarily Work Repudiation of Entire Bargain
State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether Nelson’s successful attempt to withdraw three of five bargain-based guilty pleas had the effect of abrogating the entire agreement so as to require withdrawal of the other two pleas.
Holding:
¶23 Finally, Nelson asserts that if he is successful in withdrawing some of his pleas,
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) – Intent — Child Abuse
State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115
For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas
Issue/Holding: Other acts evidence that on two prior occasions the defendant, while disciplining her child, had struck the child with sufficient force to cause injury and require government intervention, was relevant and admissible under § 904.04 to prove the intent element of the charged offense of abuse of a child, § 948.03(2)(b), and also to disprove the defense of reasonable discipline.
§ 904.10, Defendant’s Unsolicited Statement to Court Asking for Care by “Mental Doctors”
State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218
For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams
Issue: Whether defendant’s letter to the trial court, stating that he did not want the case to go to trial; that he wished to be placed in a facility in the care of “mental doctors”; and that the court sentence him for a Class B felony, was admissible.
Holding:
¶20 We agree with Norwood that Wis.
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor: Immediate Correction of Breach
State v. Richard L. Bowers, 2005 WI App 72
For Bowers: George Tauscheck
Issue/Holding: The State’s immediate correction of recommended disposition in excess of the plea bargain’s limit rendered the breach insubstantial and therefore not actionable; State v. Knox, 213 Wis. 2d 318, 321, 570 N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1997), followed:
¶12. We reach the same conclusion here. While the State did not correct itself with tremendous enthusiasm and zeal and while the trial court did not reflect upon the State’s “earnest”
Plea Bargains — Breach: By Defendant – Failure to Appear at Sentencing – Renegotiation: Defendant’s Assent, not Knowledge of Specific Performance, Required
State v. Brad S. Miller, 2005 WI App 114
For Miller: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶8 In State v. Sprang, 2004 WI App 121, 274 Wis. 2d 784, 683 N.W.2d 522, we explained that when a prosecutor breaches a plea agreement by arguing for a harsher sentence than the one the prosecutor agreed to recommend and defense counsel fails to object,