On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. Roy B. Ismert, No. 2009AP1971-CR, District IV, 7/1/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Ismert: Kristen D. Schipper; BiC; Resp.; Reply

The evidence was sufficient to support the obstructing element that Ismert knew the police officer had legal authority to stop, question and arrest him.

¶14 We conclude that Lossman and Grobstick are persuasive on the facts before us.

State v. Justin H., No. 2009AP2935, District III, 6/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Justin H.: Leonard D. Kachinsky

¶9 However, even assuming Justin properly preserved a due process argument, we reject it.  Due process principles require that a juvenile against whom a delinquency petition has been filed be given “notice … sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings … set[ting] forth the alleged misconduct with particularity.” State v.

Rock Co. DHS v. Calvin M. M., No. 2010AP816, District IV, 6/24/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Calvin M.M.: Brian C. Findley

Admission of hearsay, describing an act of domestic violence was harmless:

¶7        There are two reasons why we conclude admitting this apparent hearsay evidence was harmless error. We first observe that one of the elements the County had to prove at trial was that Calvin had not met all of the conditions for return.

State v. Patrick M. Zurkowski, No. 2009AP929-CR, District III, 6/22/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Zurkowski: Michael J. Fairchild; BiC; Resp.

1st-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficient Evidence, Intent

¶13      That Zurkowski killed June through a combination of repeated blows and cutting her tongue with a ceramic object he crammed in her mouth, rather than by killing her via a single fatal wound,

State v. Charles D. Brown, No. 2009AP2093-CR, District I, 6/23/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brown: Martin J. Pruhs; BiC; Resp.

Under State v. Comstock, 168 Wis. 2d 915, 485 N.W.2d 354 (1992), a court may not sua sponte order withdrawal of a guilty plea, absent fraud or intentional withholding of material information.

City of Chippewa Falls v. Kenneth C. Hein, No. 09AP2729, District III, 6/23/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Hein: Paul D. Polacek; BiC; (Resp. not on-line); Reply

Stop of Hein’s vehicle was supported by “reports of suspicious activity about 2:30 a.m., the nature of which was unknown:”

¶10      … A prudent officer proceeding into such ambiguity and uncertainty will ensure the availability of witnesses or suspects and freeze the scene in order to further investigate:

[A] law enforcement officer will be confronted with many situations in which it seems necessary to acquire some further information from or about a person whose name he does not know,

Village of Whitefish Bay v. David W. Czirr, No. 2010AP92, District I, 6/22/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Czirr: Rex Anderegg; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Driving across median, even for very brief period of time, establishes probable cause to arrest for traffic offense:

¶14      Next, Czirr does not specifically argue that momentarily being on top of the median cannot constitute a violation of WIS.

State v. Melvin G. Walton, No. 2009AP001304-CR, District I, 6/22/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Walton: Byron C. Lichstein; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Prosecutorial Failure to Disclose Evidence

¶28     The State has two separate evidence-disclosure responsibilities: a statutory responsibility imposed by WIS. STAT. § 971.23 and a constitutional responsibility imposed by Brady v. Maryland,

City of Ripon v. Jonathan Lebese, No. 2009AP2996-FT, District II, 6/16/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Lebese: Wendy A. Patrickus; BiC; Resp.

¶13     The circuit court’s “preliminary ruling” was based on the well-established standards of reasonable suspicion. Lebese’s counsel had proffered that the additional defense witness would corroborate Lebese’s account that he swerved in an evasive maneuver to avoid colliding with the car to his right.

Shawano Co. v. William P. Pari, No. 2009AP2338-FT, District III, 6/15/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Pari: John S. Bartholomew; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶10    We agree that Pari’s minimal deviations within the traffic lane do not alone give rise to reasonable suspicion that he was operating while intoxicated. See id., ¶¶18-21. Nor do we place great emphasis on that fact here when considering the totality of the circumstances.