On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW: State can’t use defendant’s incriminating statements made as part of on-going, State-initiated, plea negotiations
State v. Rafeal Lyfold Myrick, 2014 WI 55, 7/10/14, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity
When does negotiation become agreement? In State v. Myrick, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s resolution of this question was critical in determining whether the State could use incriminating statements that the defendant had made at a co-defendant’s preliminary hearing. The issue arose because the plea negotiations (one theory) or the plea agreement (alternate theory) fell apart, leading to the defendant’s trial on the original homicide charge. On Point’s Special Guest Michael Tobin, Deputy SPD, offers his take on the issues.
State v. Raphfeal Lyfold Myrick, 2012AP2513-CR, petition for review granted
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issues (composed by On Point):
Wis. Stat. § 904.10 provides that evidence of statements that a person made in court in connection with an offer to the prosecuting attorney to plead guilty or no contest to the crime charged or any other crime is not admissible in any criminal proceedings against the person who made the offer.
Court of Appeals reverses 1st degree intentional homicide conviction based on State’s violation of § 904.10
State v. Raphfael Lyfold Myrick, 2013 WI App 123; case activity
Wow! District 1 is really on a roll. Twice in less than one week they’ve reversed a conviction for first-degree murder. Last Friday it was State v. Wilson, 2011AP1803, a summary reversal and hence not summarized by On Point. Wednesday, it was State v. Myrick, the subject of today’s post.
§ 904.10, Defendant’s Unsolicited Statement to Court Asking for Care by “Mental Doctors”
State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218
For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams
Issue: Whether defendant’s letter to the trial court, stating that he did not want the case to go to trial; that he wished to be placed in a facility in the care of “mental doctors”; and that the court sentence him for a Class B felony, was admissible.
Holding:
¶20 We agree with Norwood that Wis.