On Point blog, page 261 of 264
Right to Silence During Custodial Interrogation; Voluntariness – Police Promises
State v. Phillip K. Saeger, 2009AP2133-CR, District 2, 8/11/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Saeger: Michael J. Burr; BiC; Resp.
Right to Silence During Custodial Interrogation
Invocation of the right to silence during custodial interrogation must be clearly articulated, holding to that effect in State v. Ross, 203 Wis. 2d 66, 552 N.W.2d 428 (Ct.
Plain Error
State v. Erik B. Hudson, 2010AP000780-CR, District 3, 8/10/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hudson: George S.Pappas, Jr.; BiC; Resp.
While “better practice” would have been to strike and give a curative instruction following a witness’s non-responsive testimony, the trial court’s failure to do so wasn’t plain error.
Reasonable Suspicion – Informant Reliability
State v. Glenn L. Earhart, 2010AP348-CR, District 3, 8/10/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Earhart: Patrick J. Stangl; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reasonable Suspicion – Informant Reliability
Authorities were under no obligation to check into a citizen-informant’s criminal record before acting on the information she related.
¶9 Earhart argues Kistner unreasonably relied on Hitchon’s report because she was a known criminal.
Recusal – Waiver; Guilty Plea – Factual Basis – Sexual Intercourse with Child
State v. Roger D. Godwin, No. 2009AP2999-CR, District 4, 8/5/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se
Recusal – Waiver
¶10 Godwin argues that Judge VanDeHey should have recused himself from the case because one of the judge’s colleagues, Judge Curry, and other courthouse staff were Godwin’s victims in the bomb threat case. The State argues that the judge was not required to recuse under WIS.
Traffic Stop – Tail Lamp Violation
State v. Laurence Evan Olson, 2010AP149-CR, District 4, 8/5/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Olson: Christopher W. Dyer; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶11 WISCONSIN STAT. § 347.13(1) provides that “[n]o vehicle originally equipped at the time of manufacture and sale with 2 tail lamps shall be operated on a highway during hours of darkness unless both such lamps are in good working order.” WISCONSIN STAT.
Restitution – Settlement Agreement
State v. Theresa E. Palubicki, No. 2010AP555-CR, District 3
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Palubicki: Michael D. Petersen; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The burden of proving setoff rests with the defendant. Although Palubicki reached a settlement agreement with the hit-and-run victim, she did not meet her burden of proving that the agreement covered lost wages, therefore she is liable for them in restitution.
Field Sobriety Testing
State v. Eric Michael Webley, No. 2010AP747-CR, District 4, 7/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Webley: Steven Cohen; BiC; Resp.
The police had reasonable suspicion believe Webley was driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 0.02, and thus to perform field sobriety tests, after an indisputably proper stop for speeding, given the following (in addition to which, Webley admitted having had two beers):
¶8 …
Traffic Stop – Lane Violation
State v. Kevin A. Rhyne, No. 2009AP163, District 4, 7/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
¶7 “An officer may conduct a traffic stop when he or she has probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred.” State v. Popke, 2009 WI 37, ¶13, 317 Wis. 2d 118, 765 N.W.2d 569 (citing State v.
TPR – Evidence; Hearsay; Effective assistance
Dane Co. DHS v. Laura E.N., No. 2010AP1172, District 4, 7/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Laura E.N.: Jean K. Capriotti
TPR – Evidence
Evidence that the mother was caring for an infant son not under CHIPS order wasn’t relevant to her ability to meet conditions for the return of her older daughters who were the subjects of the TPR proceeding, ¶¶13-16.
Judicial Bias – Sentencing after Revocation
State v. James Robert Thomas, No. 2010AP332-CR, District III, 7/27/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Thomas: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The sentencing court exhibited objective bias, requiring resentencing, when it imposed the maximum on sentencing after revocation, given the court’s threat when it placed Thomas on probation to do just that if his probation were revoked.