On Point blog, page 193 of 263
Lack of probable cause to administer first PBT didn’t taint subsequent field sobriety tests and second PBT
State v. Derek S. Strasen, 2013AP1523-CR, District 2, 1/22/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
There was no probable cause to administer an initial PBT to Strasen, who was stopped for speeding, even though he emitted a faint smell of intoxicants, had bloodshot and “glossy” eyes, and said he had been drinking but had his consumed his last drink over 12 hours earlier. (¶¶2, 4).
Counsel wasn’t ineffective for failing to object to taking of partial verdict
State v. Michael T. Grant, 2013AP515-CR, District 2, 1/15/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Grant was on trial for two counts of sexual assault involving two different victims. (¶¶1, 4-6). During deliberations the jury advised the court it had reached a verdict on one count but could not agree on the other. (¶8). In response the judge suggested taking the verdict the jury reached on the one count,
Termination of rights of cognitively disabled parent didn’t violate due process
State v. Lawanda R., 2013AP1661, District 1/4, 1/16/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly found that a parent with serious cognitive disabilities (she “functions at the level of a child less than ten years old” (¶8)) was unfit under § 48.415(2) on the sole basis that she failed to meet the conditions established by a continuing CHIPS order for the return of Will,
Sexual assault, human trafficking, and pandering charges regarding two different victims were properly joined
State v. Jermaine L. Rogers, 2013AP992-CR & 2013AP993-CR, District 1, 1/14/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2013AP992-CR; 2013AP993-CR
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting joinder under § 971.12(1) of two cases involving human trafficking, sexual assault, attempted pandering, and child enticement charges against two different victims, P.R. and K.D. Relying primarily on State v.
Any error in court’s order precluding defendant from testifying was harmless, and prosecutor did not violate Batson by striking juror based on religion
State v. Eddie Lee Anthony, 2013AP467-CR, District 1, 1/14/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 8/5/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 20; case activity
Right to Testify
The trial court held that Anthony, charged with first degree intentional homicide, forfeited his right to testify based on Anthony’s “incessant” refusal to accept the trial court’s ruling that he was to answer “two” if asked about the number of his prior convictions and Anthony’s physical agitation and irrelevant rants.
Court of appeals upholds stop based on informant’s tip and officer’s observation
Village of Hales Corners v. David E. Adams, 2013AP1128, 1/14/13, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Welcome to another court of appeals decision holding that police had reasonable suspicion to stop a person for drunk driving. In this particular case, an informant tipped off a police dispatcher, who then informed an officer in the vicinity about a possible drunk driver. Armed with a vehicle description and a license plate number,
What standard of review applies to circuit court decisions re the admission of expert testimony?
Here’s an issue in search of a published decision. In 2011, Wisconsin amended Wis. Stat § 907.02 to require circuit courts to apply the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony. Thus far, no Wisconsin appellate court has interpreted and applied the new § 907.02, so we don’t know the standard for reviewing circuit court decisions pursuant to the statute. The old test for the admission/exclusion of expert testimony wasn’t too complicated,
Court of appeals applies “law of the case” doctrine to extensions of Chapter 51 commitments.
Polk County Human Services Dep’t v. Boe H., 2013AP1719, District 3, 1/14/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity
This appeal turns on the court of appeals’ application of the law of the case doctrine, so it’s necessary to recap some procedural history.
After a jury found Boe mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous under the “fifth standard”, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.e, the circuit court committed him to the DHS for 6 months.
Trial counsel’s failure to raise viable defense means defendant gets new trial
State v. Fontaine Washington, 2011AP2462-CR, District 1, 1/17/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Washington fled from officers trying to stop the car he was driving. (¶2). Before Washington was finally stopped and arrested, the officers in pursuit saw him throw something “shiny” out the car window; a search of the area where the object was thrown turned up a gun about 30 feet off the roadway.
Video of robbery taken by private surveillance camera was properly authenticated
State v. Robert Vincent McCoy, 2012AP2583-CR, District 1, 1/7/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
An armed robbery outside a bar was caught on the security camera of a nearby homeowner, who gave a copy of the video to the police by uploading it on YouTube and emailing it to the police. The video was used to identify McCoy and then “burned” to a DVD and played at his trial.