On Point blog, page 4 of 6
Automobile exception to warrant requirement — probable cause to search trunk based on evidence found in passenger compartment
State v. Andrew Alexander Jackson, Jr., 2013 WI App 66; case activity
The circuit court erred in suppressing marijuana found in the trunk of Jackson’s car because there was probable cause to search the trunk based on the discovery of marijuana residue, $1,961 in cash, and a digital scale in the passenger compartment of the car:
¶10 Like in [United States v.] Ross,
New trial ordered due to erroneous evidentiary rulings that excluded school disciplinary records relevant to impeaching the complainant and admitted Haseltine-type evidence
State v. Gene A. Echols, 2013 WI App 58; case activity
Echols is entitled to a new trial on charges of child sexual assault because the trial court erred in prohibiting evidence relating to the complainant’s motive to fabricate the assault and in admitting testimony from Echols’s employer that he only stutters when he is lying.
Erroneous ruling excluding complainant’s school disciplinary records
A fifteen-year-old student alleged that Echols,
Miranda custody; “private safety” exception to Miranda
State v. Corey J. Uhlenberg, 2013 WI App 59; case activity
Miranda custody
Uhlenberg was in “custody” during an interview at the police department, so the circuit court should have suppressed the statements Uhlenberg made during the interrogation after he requested an attorney:
¶11 Throughout its arguments, the State emphasizes the fact that the detective repeatedly told Uhlenberg that he was not under arrest.
Privileges — Confidential informant, § 905.10(3)(b) — sufficiency of information to trigger in camera review
State v. Jessica A. Nellessen, 2013 WI App 46, petition for review granted 10/15/13; case activity
Under the two-step procedure for determining whether a confidential informant’s identity should be disclosed, the court must first determine whether there is reason to believe that the informant may be able to give testimony “necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence.” If there is reason to so believe,
Self-incrimination — waiver of right to exclude immunized testimony and evidence; no need for personal colloquy with defendant; ineffective assistance of counsel
State v. Mark J. Libecki, 2013 WI App 49; case activity
Self-incrimination — waiver of right to exclude immunized testimony and evidence; no need for personal colloquy
In this case the court of appeals holds that when a defendant waives the right to exclude at trial immunized testimony or evidence derived from that testimony, the circuit court need not engage in a personal colloquy with the defendant on the record,
Probation – increase in length of term based on crime being an act of domestic abuse; notice of potential increase; factual basis for finding the act constituted domestic abuse
State v. John R. Edwards, 2013 WI App 51; case activity
The longer period of probation applicable to a misdemeanor act of domestic abuse under Wis. Stat. § 973.09(2)(a)1.b. may be ordered even though the charging documents did not allege the crime was an act of domestic abuse.
Edwards was charged with substantial battery, strangulation and suffocation, and disorderly conduct based on an incident with his live-in girlfriend.
Search of home — apparent authority to consent; scope of consent; plain view
State v. Royce Markel Wheeler, 2013 WI App 53; case activity
Police went to a duplex in response to domestic abuse complaint from what they believed was the lower unit, with the caller saying she had been assaulted and was bleeding. (¶¶2, 4-6). After officers spent some 20 minutes knocking on the duplex’s common front door and yelling, a woman named Bates opened the door, saying she lived in the upper unit.
Miranda violation — interrogation by police; sentencing — erroneous exercise of discretion
State v. Antoine Leshawn Douglas, 2013 WI App 52; case activity
Miranda violation — interrogation by police
After a lawful arrest, but before being given Miranda warnings, Douglas initiated a conversation with the arresting officer in which he stated he wanted “to work” for the police by offering information about some marijuana dealers. After the officer declined that offer there was a “pause,” followed by Douglas changing the subject and volunteering information about a gun;
South Milwaukee ordinance restricting residency of sex offenders upheld against ex post facto and double jeopardy challenges
City of South Milwaukee v. Todd J. Kester, 2013 WI App 50; case activity
Sex offender residency restrictions – constitutionality; ex post facto and double jeopardy
South Milwaukee’s ordinance prohibiting persons convicted of certain child sex offenses from living within 1,000 feet of a school or other facility frequented by children does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto prohibitions of the state or federal constitution:
¶31 Kester fails to offer the “clearest proof”
Ineffective assistance of counsel – failure to object to admission of, and expert opinion based on, autopsy reports prepared by another pathologist; failure to object to evidence of prior felony convictions
State v. Willie M. McDougle, 2013 WI App 43; case activity
Failure to object to admission of, and expert opinion based on, autopsy reports prepared by another pathologist
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object on confrontation clause grounds to either the opinion testimony of the pathologist who did not conduct autopsy or the reports of pathologist who did conduct the autopsy because any failure to object was not prejudicial:
¶17 …[T]rial counsel’s decision not to object to Dr.