On Point blog, page 4 of 5
Third-Party Consent: Seize and Search Computer
State v. David D. Ramage, 2010 WI App 77; for Ramage: Jevin J. Mulrooney; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Co-tenant’s permissive use of Ramage’s computers conferred on her authority to consent to warrantless police removal of computer and search of their contents. Contrary authority, People v. Blair, 748 N.E.2d 318 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001); State v. Lacey,
Stalking, § 940.32: Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Carl Ralph Eichorn, 2010 WI App 70; for Eichorn: Melissa Fitzsimmons, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence was sufficient to support stalking conviction, though the requisite “course of conduct” occurred over short span of time:
¶9 In sum, there is more than sufficient evidence under our standard of review to support beyond a reasonable doubt Eichorn’s stalking conviction.
Appellate Procedure: State’s Waiver; Exculpatory Evidence: State’s Failure to Preserve
State v. Kyle Lee Huggett, 2010 WI App 69; for Huggett: Craig A. Mastantuono; BiC; Resp; Reply
The State forfeited a potential appellate argument by conceding it in the trial court, in response to Huggett’s postconviction motion, ¶14.
Unmentioned by the court: the State is the appellant. Why does that matter? Because the general rule is that the respondent on appeal may raise any argument,
Child Enticement, § 948.07: “Secluded Place”
State v. Mitchell D. Pask, 2010 WI App 53; for Pask: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
¶1 … (W)hen there is evidence that a defendant has an intention to take a child to a place that is partially screened or hidden from view, a jury may find that it is with the purpose to take the child away from public safety.
Child Pornography: Knowing Possession – Viewing Digital Image on Computer
State v. Benjamin W. Mercer, 2010 WI App 47; prior history: Certification, 7/1/09, rejected 9/10/09; for Mercer: Steven P. Sager
A person can knowingly possess images of child pornography while viewing them on a computer, even though they aren’t stored on the hard drive.
¶29 Our impression of these cases is that courts are more concerned with how the defendants got to the website showing child pornography,
Appellate Procedure: Standard of Review: Government Informant – Documentary Evidence; Confessions, 6th Amendment: Jailhouse Snitch
State v. Carl A. Lewis, Jr., 2010 WI App 52; for Lewis: John T. Wasielewski; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review: Government Informant
¶16 Our discussion must begin, as it almost always does, with the standard of review. In deciding whether a person is a government informant or agent for purposes of this Sixth Amendment analysis, the determination regarding the relationship or understanding between the police and the informant is a factual determination.
SVP Supervised Release Hearing: Petitioner’s Clear and Convincing Burden of Proof – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Tory L. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60; for Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
SVP – Supervised Release Hearing: Burden of Proof on Petitioner
Under revisions to § 980.08 wrought by 2005 Wis. Act 434 (eff. date 8/1/06), the burden of proof has been shifted from the State (to prove unsuitability for supervised release) to the petitioner (to show suitability),
Traffic Stop: Reasonable Suspicion
State v. Robert A. Tomaszewski, 2010 WI App 51; for Tomazewski: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Tomaszewski argues this is not a case in which reasonable suspicion that he was violating a traffic law would justify the stop. In Tomaszewski’s view, a temporary detention may be justified by reasonable suspicion only where an officer cannot determine,
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule: Detainer Act Claim
State v. Karon M. Asmus, 2010 WI App 48; for Asmus: Donald C. Dudley
Interstate Detainer Act claim is waived by guilty plea:
¶3 A guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, ¶18, 294 Wis. 2d 62, 716 N.W.2d 886. This rule applies even though the defendant attempts to preserve an issue by raising it in the circuit court.
Guardianship/Protective Placement – GAL Interview of Ward outside Presence of Adversary Counsel
Jennifer M. v. Franz Maurer, 2010 WI App 8
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court has authority to order a represented adult ward to submit to an interview with her guardian ad litem, outside the presence of her counsel and over her attorney’s objection, where the order also requires the guardian ad litem to report the content of the interview to the circuit court,” ¶1.
Holding:
¶11 The policies underlying the no-contact rule are of sufficient importance in guardianship cases that the right to counsel guaranteed by Wis.