On Point: 25. Jury

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.

State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2014 WI 6, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Badzinski was charged with sexually assaulting his niece, A.R.B., during a family gathering at the home of his parents. (¶¶8-9). A.R.B. testified the assault occurred in a specific room–the basement laundry room. (¶11). But there was also testimony from multiple defense witnesses that it was not possible for the assault to have happened in the laundry room.

State v. Chase M.A. Boruch, 2013AP925-CR, District 3, 1/22/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

While deliberating on the charge that Boruch killed his mother, the jury asked the judge for the “autopsy report.” (¶¶4, 8). The parties agreed to send back the preliminary and final reports done by Corliss, the state’s pathologist, along with a toxicology report; however, the judge refused Borcuch’s request to send the jury the report of Randall,

State v. Michael T. Grant, 2013AP515-CR, District 2, 1/15/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Grant was on trial for two counts of sexual assault involving two different victims. (¶¶1, 4-6). During deliberations the jury advised the court it had reached a verdict on one count but could not agree on the other. (¶8). In response the judge suggested taking the verdict the jury reached on the one count,

State v. Eddie Lee Anthony, 2013AP467-CR, District 1, 1/14/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 8/5/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 20; case activity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.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury that voluntary consumption of any drug precludes a finding of “mental defect” under § 971.15, where the defendant claimed he suffered from a temporary mental defect based in part on his use of a prescription drug as directed by a doctor?

Did the court of appeals erroneously exercise its discretion in granting a new trial in the interest of justice?

State v. Mark K. Schrick, 2013AP1166-CR, District 4, 12/27/13 (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Actually, this case concerns more than just dentures.  A jury convicted Schrick of operating a vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration in violation of §346.63(1)(b). On appeal, Schrick challenged (1) the trial court’s decision to deny his motion for a directed verdict, (2) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, and (3)  a jury instruction saying that by statute the administered breath test was considered accurate. 

State v. Julian L. Perez, 2013AP750-CR, District 1, 12/10/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Where the evidence at trial showed that the defendant possessed a firearm over a short span of time at two locations in the same apartment building, the jury did not need to be unanimous as to which location the possession occurred. Instead, unanimity was required only as to whether the defendant had possessed a firearm in the building in question on the date charged.

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.

State v. Richard P. Selenske, 2013AP1403-CR, District 3, 11/5/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

A dispute about a contract for the purchase of standing hay grew into a misdemeanor theft charge when Selenske, the farmer who owned the hay fields, would not let Kern, the farmer who purchased the hay, pick up the last of the bales. The bare-bones contract Selenske wrote didn’t include a completion date,