On Point blog, page 11 of 16
Sexual assault, human trafficking, and pandering charges regarding two different victims were properly joined
State v. Jermaine L. Rogers, 2013AP992-CR & 2013AP993-CR, District 1, 1/14/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2013AP992-CR; 2013AP993-CR
The trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting joinder under § 971.12(1) of two cases involving human trafficking, sexual assault, attempted pandering, and child enticement charges against two different victims, P.R. and K.D. Relying primarily on State v.
Capitol rotunda singer gets civil pre-trial discovery in State’s action to collect forfeiture
State v. Anica C. C. Bausch, 2014 WI App 12; case activity
Bausch participated in a “Solidarity Sing Along” at the State Capitol in the fall of 2012. The Capitol Police cited her for violating Wis. Admin. Code ADM sec. 2.14(2)(v). Bausch pled “not guilty” and served the State with requests for admissions, interrogatories, and production of documents. The State responded with a “Motion in Opposition to Application of Civil Discovery.”
Aggregating 289 thefts as 1 continuous offense then dividing by 8 = no multiplicity violation
State v. Tina M. Jacobsen, 2014 WI App 13; case activity
Jacobsen was charged with 8 offenses for stealing $500,000 from her employer, and she was convicted on 3 counts. The charges were based on 289 individual thefts occurring over 3 years. On appeal she claimed her trial lawyer was ineffective for failing advise her that, and for failing to seek dismissal because, the charges were duplicitous or multiplicitous.
State v. O’Brien, 2012AP1769, petition for review granted 12/5/13
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Wis. Stat. § 970.038 (2011-12) makes hearsay evidence admissible at a criminal defendant’s preliminary examination and permits the probable cause determination and bindover decision at a preliminary examination to be based “in whole or in part” on hearsay evidence. Do these provisions violate a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to confront adversary witnesses,
Evidence sufficient to support jury’s sexual assualt verdict against gynecologist; joinder of claims upheld
State v. Evan K. Saunders, 2013AP1229-CR, District 1, 11/5/13 (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
This case concerns a gynecologist’s sexual assault of 4 different patients over 2 1/2 years.
Sufficiency of evidence: Fourth degree sexual assault requires proof that the defendant had “sexual contact” with the victim without her consent. Wis. Stat. § 940.225(3m). And “sexual contact,” among other things, requires evidence that the defendant acted either with intent to harm the victim,
Court rejects sufficiency claim based on discrepancies between charging document and proof
State v. Dragisa Pavlovic, 2013AP1180-CR, District 2, 10/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Pavlovic was charged with bail jumping for violating bond conditions that included no contact with his wife or her residence. (¶2). One count alleged he had contact with his wife on July 23; the evidence at trial, however, showed only that he had contact with her residence that day;
State’s handling of photo array evidence did not violate due process or discovery statute
State v. Raynard Rashawn Jackson, 2012AP1854, 2012AP1861, and 2012AP1862, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP1854; 2012AP1861; 2012AP1862
Jackson was alleged to have been involved in a shooting, and as part of their investigation the police constructed a photo array to show to three eyewitnesses, all of whom identified Jackson. (¶¶2, 10-11). The array consisted of photos of Jackson and five other persons.
Joinder — multiple incidents of armed robbery, two of which also involved homicide. Identification — suggestiveness of photo array
State v. Deontaye Terrel Lusk, 2012AP587-CR, 2012AP588-CR, 2012AP589-CR, & 2012AP590-CR, District 1, 7/16/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP587-CR; 2012AP588-CR; 2012AP589-CR; 2012AP590-CR
Joinder
Lusk was charged in four cases with crimes arising from five armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery that occurred in April, May, June, and July, 2009. In two of the robberies the victim was killed,
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Ethics rule governing prosecutor’s duty to disclose information to defense is not more demanding than the constitutional duty to disclose
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sharon A. Riek, 2103 WI 81 (per curiam), affirming referee’s dismissal of disciplinary complaint; case activity
The supreme court holds that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose information to the defense under SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) does not impose a broader duty to disclose than the constitutional duty imposed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Guest Post: Marcus Berghahn on the Court of Appeals decision upholding the use of hearsay at preliminary hearings
State v. Martin P. O’Brien, State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97.
As briefly noted in a previous post, the Court of Appeals has upheld Wis. Stat. § 970.038, which makes hearsay admissible at preliminary hearings and allows bindover based solely on hearsay. On Point is pleased to present this guest post about the decision by Attorney Marcus Berghahn,