On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Nicholas Fex, 2010AP1794-CR, District 1, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Fex: Wendy A. Patrickus; case activity

Reasonable suspicion supported stop of only car seen leaving bar parking lot, at high rate of speed, following report of fight at the bar.

¶8        Based on the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the trial court that the high rate of speed at which Fex left the bar together with the officers’ knowledge that a fight had been reported at that bar,

State v. Cham Okery Omot, 2010AP899, District III

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Omot: Tyler William Wickman; case activity; Omot BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Evidence held insufficient to sustain convictions for maintaining drug trafficking place, § 961.42(1), and possession with intent to distribute THC , § 961.41(1m)(h)1., both as party to a crime,

State v. Jason C. Walker, 2010AP83-CR, District 3, 12/14/10

court of appeals decision; (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Walker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply; prior opinion withdrawn 12/2/10, prior summary, here

On sentencing after revocation, the trial judge relied on sexual assault allegations appearing in the revocation summary;

State v. William J. Merry, 2010AP1618-CR, District 2, 11/17/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; State Resp.

¶8        Here, Nye testified that when he observed Merry’s vehicle, he could see “that the stoplight for the intersection for westbound traffic was red.” While Merry is correct that Nye did not (and could not) testify to having personally observed the traffic light from Merry’s perspective,

Outagamie County v. Daniel C. Torreano, 2010AP978, District 3, 11/2/10 

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Torreano: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply

¶8        While this case also presents a relatively close call, we agree with the circuit court that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.  That Torreano was observed driving in the early morning hours, within forty-five minutes of “bar time,” is a highly significant factor.  

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.