On Point: E. Specific motions/hearings

State v. Michael T. O’Haver, 2011Ap2930-CR, District 2/4, 6/20/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Change of venue

The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying O’Haver’s motion to change venue, applying State v. Albrecht, 184 Wis. 2d 287, 306, 516 N.W.2d 776 (Ct. App. 1994). There were a limited number of potentially objectionable pretrial media reports describing the homicide and distress of the victim’s family.

State v. Joshua A. Prescott, 2012 WI App 136; case activity

Felon-in-possession, § 941.29, was properly joined for trial with reckless injury by use of dangerous weapon:

¶17      Based on our review of the record, we agree with the trial court that the charges were properly joined. The felon in possession and reckless injury charges were “based on the same act or transaction.” See Wis.

Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Amanda H, 2011AP2600, District 3, 5/15/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Amanda H.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; companion case: Oneida County Department of Social Services v. Scott H., 2011AP2599

TPR – Severance 

On joint trial for termination of parental rights, Scott’s disruptive conduct didn’t necessitate grant of severance motion by Amanda. 

State v. Forrest Andre Saunders, 2011 WI App 156 (recommended for publication); for Saunders: Robert A. Kagen; case activity

Notice of Alibi, § 971.23(8) – DA Comment on Missing Witness 

“Alibi” merely refers to the fact that the defendant was elsewhere when the alleged occurred, ¶21, citing, State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, ¶13, 260 Wis. 2d 125, 659 N.W.2d 110. 

State v. Crystal P. Keith, 2010AP1667-CR, District 1, 5/24/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Keith: John A. Pray; case activity

On Keith’s conviction for reckless homicide in beating death of foster son, statements of her biological daughter (such as, “Why does mama have to go to jail for what my daddy did”) didn’t satisfy the test for newly discovered evidence. Keith’s confession to the police “was so detailed”

State v. Adamm D.J. Linton, 2010 WI App 129; for Linton: Joseph E. Redding; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Interrogation – Ambiguous Request for Counsel

Initial custodial questioning terminated when Linton invoked his right to silence. During subsequent re-interrogation, Linton said, “when I asked for a lawyer earlier, why wasn’t he appointed to me?” The detective indicated that if Linton was asking for a lawyer then the police would “just stop talking to”

State v. Frederick Robertson, 2003 WI App 84
For Robertson: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where principal issue concerned the complainant’s credibility, indication first revealed after conviction that she had been treated for depression with psychotic features around the time of the incident required in camera inspection to determine whether her mental health records must be disclosed to the defense.

This case arrives at the unmapped intersection of postconviction discovery and privileged records.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold

Issue/Holding: Viability of State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993) upheld, against claim by state that it should be overturned. ¶22 n. 4. State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391,

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565

For Samuel: Robert A. Henak

Issue/Holding: Ҧ35. Under Velez, first the defendant must bring a motion to suppress, alleging facts sufficient to show that a statement was involuntary under Clappes and that the police misconduct at issue is egregious such that it produces statements that are unreliable as a matter of law.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold

Issue/Holding: The court modifies the threshold showing required for an in camerainspection, in favor of “a slightly higher standard,” namely a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the records will be necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence.”¶32.

¶34. Based on the above considerations,