On Point: 10. Defenses

State v. James D. Miller, 2002 WI App 197, PFR filed 8/2/02
For Miller: Matthew H. Huppertz, Craig Kuhary, Daniel P. Fay

Issue/Holding: The charging period of March 1, 1989, to March 31, 1993, was not too expansive to provide opportunity to prepare a defense, largely because of the victim’s youthfulness and vulnerable relationship (patient-therapist) to defendant, ¶31; and because the alleged offenses occurred during therapy sessions,

State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act of sexual violence.

Holding:

¶22. Although Parrish’s preclusion argument presents an issue of first impression in Wisconsin,

State Charles A. Dunlap, 2002 WI 19, reversing, 2000 WI App 251, 239 Wis. 2d 423, 620 N.W.2d 398
For Dunlap: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “(W)hether a defendant who is charged with sexual assault should be allowed to present evidence of sexual behavior exhibited by the child complainant prior to the alleged assault, even though the evidence would normally be barred by the rape shield law,

State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9
For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan
Issue/Holding:

¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed in issue by the trial evidence,

State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9
For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan

Issue/Holding:

¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed in issue by the trial evidence,

State v. John F. Giminski, 2001 WI App 211, PFR filed 9/20/01
For Giminski: Edward J. Hunt

Issue: Whether the defendant was entitled to invoke the privilege of defense of others, § 939.48(4), in using potentially deadly force against police officers who had pulled a gun on his daughter while executing a valid warrant.

Holding:

¶13. (T)he privilege of defense of others, like the privilege of self-defense,

State v. Carl R. Kramer, 2001 WI 132, reversing and remanding 2000 WI App 271, 240 Wis. 2d 44, 622 N.W.2d 4
For Kramer: Stephen D. Willett

Issue1: Whether Kramer established a prima facie case for selective prosecution.

Holding: On a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show both discriminatory purpose and effect. The state concedes discriminatory purpose. As to effect: Prosecutorial selectivity is itself non-problematic.

State v. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2001 WI App 251, PFR filed
For Sorenson: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue1: Whether issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) may be used “offensively” by the state in a Ch. 980 trial to bar a respondent from presenting evidence that s/he didn’t commit the offense which underlies the qualifying conviction.

Holding:

¶28  Accordingly, we hold that the doctrine of issue preclusion is available for use offensively in Chapter 980 trials.  

State v. Philip M. Canon, 2001 WI 11, 241 Wis. 2d 164, 622 N.W.2d 270, reversing State v. Canon, 230 Wis. 2d 512, 602 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Canon: Alan D. Eisenberg

¶1 The question presented in this case is whether the doctrine of issue preclusion bars the State from prosecuting a defendant under Wis. Stat. § 946.31(1)(a)(1997-98) for allegedly committing perjury at a criminal trial where the defendant was tried and acquitted on a single issue,

State v. Ludwig Guzman, 2001 WI App 54, 241 Wis. 2d 310, 624 N.W.2d 717
For Guzman: Robert E. Haney

Issue: Whether a verdict of acquittal in the defendant’s prior trial estopped the prosecution from retrying the ultimate fact resolved by that acquittal.

Holding:

¶7 ‘Under the collateral estoppel doctrine an issue of ultimate fact that is determined by a valid and full judgment cannot again be litigated between the same parties in a subsequent lawsuit.’ State v.