On Point: 25. Jury

State v. David A. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131, affirmed, 2010 WI 84, ¶2 n. 3
For Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Unanimity is not required on whether the defendant “resisted” or “obstructed” a warden on a charge of violating § 29.951, ¶¶21-42.

All the rest is commentary. (Translated: the court undertakes a lengthy analysis that won’t be summarized.) Of particular note,

State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31

For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger

Issue/Holding: Jury instructions on the elements of duty and intent under § 946.12(3) created mandatory conclusive presumptions:

¶10      Schultz contends that the following sentences in the jury instruction given by the trial court operated as mandatory conclusive presumptions on the issues of intent and duty: “The use of a state resource to promote a candidate in a political campaign or to raise money for a candidate provides to that candidate a dishonest advantage” (establishing the intent element);

State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision
For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: Belated discovery of the bailiff’s involvement in the charged offense as a possible witness did not, under the circumstances, cause sufficient prejudice to require mistrial:

¶57 In the present case, Wolfgram was unaware of his involvement in the case until the morning of trial.

State v. Dale L. Smith, 2006 WI 74, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Allison Ritter

Issue/Holding:

¶16      The sole question we must address on appeal is whether Smith was denied the right to an impartial jury by the circuit court’s refusal to strikeCharlotte for cause. Smith argues that Charlotte should have been disqualified as objectively biased because she was employed by the prosecuting attorney.

State v. George Melvin Taylor, 2004 WI App 81, PFR filed 4/13/04
For Taylor: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18. Accordingly, we must now turn to the Batson challenge itself. Our supreme court has adopted the Batson principles and analysis. State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, ¶22, 262 Wis. 2d 747,

State v. Nancy R. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals, affirmed on habeas review, Lamon v. Boatwright, 7th Cir No. 05-4018, 11/8/06
For Lamon: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: A trial judge is not required to make detailed findings in ruling on a Batson issue, ¶76.

Issue/Holding: That a prospective juror’s last name “is a well-known criminal name” in the locality,

State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove

Issue/Holding:

¶15. In a challenge to a Batson ruling, we review the trial court’s determination as to whether the State had a discriminatory intent as a finding of historical fact, which we shall not disturb unless clearly erroneous. State v. Gregory,

State v. Shon D. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, PFR filed 2/3/03
For Brown: Robert T. Ruth

Issue: Whether defendant was entitled to an instruction on territorial jurisdiction, § 939.03, where the offense was partially committed out of the state.

Holding:

¶23. The question of whether or when a jury must be instructed on the State’s burden to establish its territorial jurisdiction over a defendant for charged offenses appears to be one of first impression in Wisconsin.

State v. Howard C. Carter, 2002 WI App 55
For Howard: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Although review of a trial court’s determination of subjective (non-)bias of a prospective juror is generally deferential, here review is independent “because this is one of those rare situations where the prospective juror’s unambiguous response, rather than his demeanor, is the basis of his subjective bias.” ¶10. And, because the juror openly admitted his bias,

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,