On Point blog, page 8 of 11
Grant of continuance under speedy trial statute also continued deadline for trial under Intrastate Detainer Act
State v. Malcolm A. Butler, 2014 WI App 4; case activity
The 120-day deadline for trying a case under the Intrastate Detainer Act, § 971.11(2), is explicitly “subject to” the speedy trial statute, § 971.10; thus, the Intrastate Detainer Act incorporates the provision of the speedy trial statute that allows for continuances for good cause, § 971.10(3)(a), and those continuances may go beyond the 120-day deadline.
State v. Angelica C. Nelson, 2012AP2140-CR, petition for review granted 12/16/13
Review of unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Does harmless error analysis apply when a trial judge erroneously denies a defendant the right to testify in her own defense?
Nelson wanted to testify in her child sexual assault trial, and the court engaged in a colloquy with her about waiving her right to remain silent, see State v.
Right to a public trial. Lay testimony about events depicted on surveillance video.
State v. Amos L. Small, 2013 WI App 117; case activity
Right to a public trial
The circuit court appropriately excluded a person from the courtroom under State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, after the prosecutor asserted the had threatened a state’s witness after her testimony. (¶9). While Small’s lawyer objected to the exclusion of the person on the grounds it violated Small’s right to a public trial and was based on a hearsay statement,
Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury. Closing argument — state’s reference to defendant’s failure to call witnesses. Prior inconsistent statement — witness’s lack of recollection
State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez, 2012AP1818-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 1/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 124; case activity
Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury
Where inmate victim of battery by another prisoner identified one of his assailants as an inmate “with platinum teeth”
Waiver of right to testify
State v. Leshurn Hunt, 2010AP2516, District 4, 5/16/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity
Issue: Was defendant’s decision not to testify at trial knowing, intelligent and voluntary on the grounds that; (a) the court conducted a defective colloquy; (b) the defendant was coerced to waive his right to testify; and (c) the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel?
Holding: Hunt’s waiver was fine. The legal test is set forth in State v.
Discretion of trial court — evidentiary decisions; mistrial motions
State v. Desmond Dejuan Laster, 2012AP1739-CR, District 1, 4/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
The trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in making two evidentiary rulings or in denying Laster’s motion for a mistrial.
On the first evidentiary ruling, the court of appeals holds the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask Hunt, a defense witness,
Evidence excluded from state’s case-in-chief because of discovery violation is admissible in rebuttal; “sleeping juror” issue resolved by lack of finding that juror was sleeping
State v. Brent T. Novy, 2013 WI 23, affirming 2012 WI App 10; case activity
Evidence excluded from state’s case-in-chief because of discovery violation is admissible as rebuttal evidence
The trial court excluded the state from presenting fingerprint evidence in its case-in-chief because the state failed to properly disclose the evidence under Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(g). But after Novy testified, the court allowed the state to put the evidence in during its rebuttal case.
Denial of fair trial – restraint of defendant during trial; sentencing – reliance on inaccurate information; new factor
State v. Richard Wade Shirley, 2012AP263-CR, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Denial of fair trial – restraint of defendant during trial
Defendant forfeited claim that he was deprived of a fair trial because at least one juror saw he was shackled in the court room: “Not only does the record show that Shirley failed to strike the one juror that the record demonstrates saw the restraints,
State v. Nancy J. Pinno, 2011AP2424-CR/State v. Travis J. Seaton, 2012AP918, certification granted, 2/25/13
On review of court of appeals certification; case activity: Pinno; Seaton
Issue (from certification):
Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?
See our previous post for further discussion.
Waiver / Forfeiture of Right: Generally – Right to Presence / Testify; Sentencing: Accurate Information – New Factor
State v. Allen Dell Vaughn, 2012 WI App 129 (recommended for publication); case activity
Waiver / Forfeiture of Right, Generally
Waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege; forfeiture is: (1) the failure to object to something without intending to relinquish that which an objection might have preserved and (2) doing something incompatible with the assertion of a right, ¶21, citing State v.