On Point blog, page 4 of 9
Scattershot attack on conviction for criminal damage to property and armed robbery misses marks
State v. Clifton Robinson, 2014AP1575-CR, 3/31/15, District 1 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs and docket
The court of appeals here rejects a barrage of challenges to Robinson’s conviction for criminal damage to property and armed robbery with use of force–everything from a Batson challenge, to severance issues, to the sufficiency of evidence, to the admission of prejudicial evidence and more.
Voir dire panel “untainted” despite deputy/juror’s assertion that State had enough evidence to convict defendant
State v. Dawn M. Hackel, 2014AP1765-CR, District 4, 3/19/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
During voir dire at an OWI trial, a sheriff’s deputy/prospective juror said he had arrested drunk drivers, testified in drunk driving cases, and said that based on his professional training and occupation the State had sufficient evince to convict Hackel, and, therefore, she was guilty as charged. The court of appeals held this in no way tainted the jury panel heading into trial.
SCOTUS: Rule 606(b) bars jurors’ testimony about information that wasn’t revealed during voir dire
Warger v. Shauers, USSC No. 13-517, 2014 WL 6885952 (December 9, 2014), affirming Warger v. Shauers, 721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)
Resolving an issue that had split some federal circuit courts, the Supreme Court unanimously holds that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit or testimony about what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror was dishonest during voir dire.
Voir dire questions by prosecutor that elicited promise to convict if elements were proven did not deny right to jury trial
State v. Frank M. Zdzieblowski, 2014 WI App 130; case activity
The prosecutor during voir dire elicited a promise from prospective jurors that they would convict if the State proved the elements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, and then reminded the jurors of that promise in his rebuttal closing argument. The court of appeals holds the prosecutor’s unobjected-to voir dire questioning and rebuttal closing argument neither rose to the level of plain error nor warranted a new trial in the interest of justice.
Trial court didn’t improperly restrict voir dire of 6-person jury in traffic forfeiture case
Washington County v. Joseph Harvey Bingen, 2013AP1171, District 2, 2/5/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The trial court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion by denying Bingen’s request for additional voir dire of prospective jurors for his first-offense OWI trial. In particular, Bingen was not able to ask if any jurors had been the victims of or convicted of drunk driving.
Any error in court’s order precluding defendant from testifying was harmless, and prosecutor did not violate Batson by striking juror based on religion
State v. Eddie Lee Anthony, 2013AP467-CR, District 1, 1/14/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 8/5/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 20; case activity
Right to Testify
The trial court held that Anthony, charged with first degree intentional homicide, forfeited his right to testify based on Anthony’s “incessant” refusal to accept the trial court’s ruling that he was to answer “two” if asked about the number of his prior convictions and Anthony’s physical agitation and irrelevant rants.
SCOW: Six-person jury for involuntary mental commitment survives equal protection challenge
Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity
Majority opinion by Justice Crooks; concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson; additional concurrence by Justice Ziegler (joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman)
The issues in this case spring from State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 318-319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995)(“persons committed under Chapters 51 and 980 are similarly situated for purposes of equal protection comparison) and State v.
SCOW curtails defendant’s right to be present when a judge questions jurors during trial
State v. Alexander, 2013 WI 70, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2011AP394-CR; case activity; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; concurrences by Justice Crooks (joined by Chief Justice Abrahmason and Justice Bradley), Justice Ziegler, and separately by Chief Justice Abrahamson.
This decision is alarming. During Alexander’s 1st-degree intentional homicide trial, concerns surfaced about whether, due to possible bias, 2 different jurors should continue serving on the case.
SCOW affirms convictions of praying parents
State v. Neumann, 2011AP1044 and 2011AP1105, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity; majority opinion by C.J. Abrahamson.
In a 94-page decision, including a lone dissent by Justice Prosser, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has affirmed the 2nd degree reckless homicide convictions of Dale and Leilani Neumann for the death of their 11-year old daughter, Kara, who died of diabetic ketoacidosis caused by untreated juvenile onset diabetes mellitus.
Jury – selection – “Batson” claim; prosecutor’s failure to provide neutral explanation for striking Native American juror
State v. Karen Lynn Snow, 2012AP2323-CR, District 4, 4/4/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, not eligible for publication); case activity
Applying the three-part, burden shifting test for Batson claims, see State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, ¶28, 262 Wis. 2d 747, 664 N.W.2d 607, the court of appeals concludes the circuit court erred in rejecting Snow’s objection to the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of Whiteeagle,