On Point: Published 1996

State v. James C. Lindsey, 203 Wis. 2d 423, 554 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Lindsey: Park M. Drescher

Issue/Holding:

It is undisputed that the trial court at the sentencing hearing erred when it did not afford Lindsey the right of allocution provided by § 972.14(2), Stats. …First, we conclude that because § 972.14(2), Stats., clearly establishes a statutory right of allocution and because the trial court did not follow the mandate of § 972.14(2),

State v. Crystal Harrell a/k/a Parker, 199 Wis. 2d 654, 546 N.W.2d 115 (1996)

Issue/Holding:

Although Parker encourages us to provide an objective standard of review for the initial subjective decision by a judge not to disqualify himself or herself, we decline to do so. Wisconsin Statute § 757.19(2)(g) is clearly drafted so as to place the determination of partiality solely upon the judge.

William Olson v. Kaprelian, 202 Wis. 2d 377, 550 N.W.2d 712 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Olson: Terry W. Rose

Issue: Whether bail posted under a bond in a seprate criminal case may be forfeited in order to satisfy a restitution obligation.

Holding:

In regards to this jurisdictional question, Olson … argues that a trial court has no jurisdiction to simply issue an order that assigns funds directly from a bond to the crime victim.We agree and thus hold that the trial court’s order is void as a matter of law.

William Olson v. Kaprelian, 202 Wis. 2d 377, 550 N.W.2d 712 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Olson: Terry W. Rose

Issue/Holding:

The statutory section governing restitution allows a defendant to reduce civil damages awarded to the crime victim by amounts paid pursuant to a restitution order. See § 973.20(8), Stats. We read this statute to likewise enable a defendant to try to reduce the amount he or she owes because of a restitution award during settlement negotiations on the companion civil case.

State v. Daniel L. Gaulrapp, 207 Wis. 2d 600, 558 N.W.2d 696 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Gaulrapp: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding: Asking the motorist, during a routine stop for a muffler violation, if he had drugs or weapons and then obtaining permission to search the vehicle didn’t illegally extend the detention:

The trial court here made extensive findings, and the record supports its findings. The court found the detention was of a short duration and the request to search was made within a reasonable time.

State v. Crystal Harrell a/k/a Parker, 199 Wis. 2d 654, 546 N.W.2d 115 (1996)

Issue/Holding:

The issue before us is whether, in a case tried by the district attorney’s office, a circuit court judge, whose spouse is an assistant district attorney in the same county, is required to disqualify himself or herself under either Wis. Stat. § 757.19(2)(a) (1993-94),1–prohibiting a judge from hearing a case when a close relative is “counsel thereto”

State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391, 395, 546 N.W.2d 570 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Munoz: Craig M. Kuhary

Issue/Holding:

Here, as in Lederer, the defense offered nothing more than “the mere possibility” that the records “might produce some evidence helpful to the defense.” Lederer, however, was decided before Shiffra. The broad language of Shiffra-“that the sought-after evidence is relevant and may be helpful to the defense,” 

State v. Robert L. Myers, Jr., 199 Wis. 2d 391, 544 N.W.2d 609 (Ct. App. 1996)

Issue/Holding:

We agree with the State that the potential for a future ch. 980, Stats., commitment was a collateral consequence of Myers’ guilty plea. Trial courts may not accept a guilty plea unless they are satisfied that the plea is knowing and voluntary. State v. James, 176 Wis.2d 230,