On Point blog, page 252 of 263
Jury – Deliberations – Sequestration
State v. Bradley A. Brandsma, 2010AP1429-CR , District 4, 12/23/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brandsma: Anthony J. Jurek; case activity; Brandsma BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Trial courts have “very broad discretion” under § 972.12 to allow a deliberating jury to separate overnight before returning to resume deliberations; court of appeals rejects argument under state and federal constitutions “a circuit court should presume that any separation of a jury renders that jury impartial in light of rapidly changing modes and content of publicly available information,”
Effective Assistance – Plea Advice; Newly Discovered Evidence; Counsel – Sanction
State v. Charles A. Bouc, 2010AP180, District 2, 12/22/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Bouc: Adam Walsh; case activity; Bouc BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Effective Assistance – Plea Advice
Counsel did not fall short of normative performance standards, where he weighed with his client the pros and cons of admissibility of potentially crucial evidence;
TPR – Partial Summary Judgment
Marathon County Dept. of Social Services v. Lorie O., 2010AP2351, District 3, 12/21/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorie O.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity
Summary judgment may be granted as to grounds for TPR, Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶6; but where the CHIPS order, on which alleged unfitness is premised, fails to set forth conditions for regaining contact with the child,
Traffic Stop – Illumination Requirement
State v. George C. Greenwood, 2010AP1837-CR, District 4, 12/16/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Greenwood: Gerald C. Opgenorth; case activity; Greenwood BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Traffic stop properly based on violation of illuminaiton requirement in § 347.13(3) (rear plate must be illuminated by white light so as to be clearly legible from distance of 50 feet).
Evidence – Ongoing Conflict with Deceased, Hearsay – Residual Exception, 3rd-Party Guilt; Sufficiency of Evidence – Homicide
State v. Kevin M. Moore, 2009AP3167-CR, District 2, 12/15/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Moore: Jeffrey W. Jensen; Moore BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Frequenting “Gentleman’s Club” as Source of Friction with Deceased
Evidence that Moore spent much time and money at a local “gentleman’s club,” offered by the State to as support for an “ongoing conflict”
Miranda – Custody; Lesser Included Offense Instruction
State v. Tony Lamont Jackson, 2010AP351-CR, District 1, 12/14/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Hans P. Koesser; Jackson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Miranda – Custody
Initially treated at the scene of a shooting by the police as a witness rather than suspect, Jackson voluntarily accompanied the police to the station to continue providing information,
TPR – Default as Sanction; Formal Advice as to Rights – Harmless Error
State v. Marquita R., 2010AP1981, District 1, 12/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Marquita R.: Carl W. Chesshir
TPR – Default as Sanction
Delay of over two-and-one-half years between petition and fact-finding hearing (despite statutorily mandated schedule of 45-day limit, § 48.422(2)), caused by Marquita R.’s “egregious” and “bath faith” conduct, intended to disrupt the TPR process, supported the trial court’s decision to find her in default as a sanction.Nor did the default ruling violate due process,
TPR – Right to Post-Disposition Visitation, Vacated Order and Right to Reinstated Visitation
State v. Lorraine J. / Johnny J., 2010AP137, et al,District 1, 12/8/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorraine J.: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; for Johnny J.: John J. Grau
TPR – Right to Post-Disposition Visitation
A termination order severs all parental rights, including visitation under § 48.43, ¶¶31-37.
TPR – Vacated Order and Right to Reinstated Visitation
Grant of a post-disposition motion,
Consensual Entry of Residence
State v. Mark A. Miller, 2010AP352-CR, District 4, 12/9/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Miller: Bill Ginsberg; Miller BiC; State Resp.
The court concludes that Miller voluntarily consented to police entreaties over an 11-minute period to enter his home so that they could perform field sobriety testing, notwithstanding his refusals during that time to allow entry:
¶7 The circuit court found that the officer spoke with Miller for approximately eleven minutes and,
TPR – Disposition – “Wishes of the Child”
Dane Co. DHS v. Susan P. S, 2010AP573, District 4, 12/9/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se
Determination of the “best interests of the child” at TPR disposition includes consideration of various factors, including the “wishes of the child.” The TPR court need not hear directly from the child, but may instead take evidence of the child’s wishes from other sources.
Court discusses evidentiary issues that appear to be too inconsequential,