On Point: Uncategorized

Docket

Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court)

Question Presented:

Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.

Cert. Petition

State’s Brief Opposing Cert

SCOTUSblog page

Follow-up to Melendez-Diaz v.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cortes: Timmothy J. Lennon; BiC; Resp.; Reply

State v. Rolando S. Cortes, 2010AP621-CR, Distric 3, 10/5/10

The officer had reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop:

¶7        Conley’s inference that Cortes was trying to elude or evade police was reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.  Cortes pointed at Conley’s cruiser,

County of Washington v. Michael D. Brazee, 2010AP687, District 2, 9/8/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brazee: Walter Arthur Piel, Jr.; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Probable cause to arrest found notwithstanding absence of PBT, given erratic driving, admission of drinking 8-10 beers, and failed field sobriety test performance:

¶17    Brazee seems to be asserting that under Renz I and Renz II,

State v. Charles G. Jury, 2010AP622-CR, District 2, 9/1/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jury: Eric R. Pangburn; BiC; Resp.

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of vehicle for any or all of the following reasons: dim tail light; necklace hanging from rearview mirror so as to obstruct driver’s view; driving on double yellow line.

Waukesha County DH&HS v. Michelle P., 2009AP1087, District 2, 8/25/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Michelle P.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD , Madison Appellate

Authority of the local department to suspend visitation without judicial approval is an “interesting” issue, but one that need not be reached under these facts because the error if any was harmless:

¶11 We point out that, under Wis.

State v. Jaquita B., 2010AP1215, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Jacquita B.: Jane S. Earle

Termination of Jaquita’s parental rights to her two children upheld, where the record shows the trial court properly considered: the children’s likelihood of adoption; permanency of a sustaining care contract in preference to guardianship;  Jaquita’s failure to offer stability to the children; and the11-year-old’s desire to return to Jaquita (the last rejected as not in the best if either child because it would lead to their separation form each other).

State v. Robert Wendt, 2010AP75-CR, District 1, 8/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wendt: Kirk B. Obear; BiC; Resp.

Reasonable suspicion supported temporary stop of driver of truck idling at 1:30 a.m. behind business in winter with it snow plow up.

¶16 Here, there were “specific and articulable facts,” as set forth by Sergeant Paul during her testimony,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Miranda – Traffic Stop – Marijuana Odor and Probable Cause
Suppression of passenger’s statement due to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings leaves police without probable cause to arrest driver:

¶7        First, we will address the State’s argument that Kohel’s statement “[w]e just smoked an hour ago” was voluntary and should not be suppressed. 

court of appeals decision (3-judge); Resp Br; Reply

Sentencing Discretion
Sentencing court’s giving “public protection factor” “paramount” consideration proper exercise of discretion.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); Resp Br; Reply

Impartial Tribunal
Various rulings did not evince judicial bias, even if some displayed “irritation or impatience”; moreover, judicial rulings alone almost never establish judicial partiality.