On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Gregg A. Pfaff, 2004 WI App 31
For Pfaff: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: Probable cause to arrest for OWI upheld on following facts as found by trial court:

¶20. … Metzen’s decision not to perform field sobriety testing was reasonable in light of Pfaff’s injuries. Metzen is an experienced officer and has processed many defendants for OWI. Metzen was at the scene of the accident and,

State v. Jacob J. Faust, 2004 WI 99, reversing 2004 WI App 243, 267 Wis. 2d 783, 672 N.W.2d 97
For Faust: Stephen M. Seymour

Issue: “(W)hether, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, exigent circumstances exist for a nonconsensual warrantless blood draw after the police have obtained what the arresting officer believes to be a voluntary,

State v. Victor Naydihor, 2004 WI 43, affirming 2002 WI App 272, 258 Wis. 2d 746, 654 N.W.2d 479

For Naydihor: Philip J. Brehm

Issue: Whether the State’s allocution amounted to an end-run violation of its obligation to recommend probation at sentencing by stressing Naydihor’s “lengthy history of polysubstance abuse,” his presentation of danger to the community, harm he caused the victim,

State v. Brian W. Sprang, 2004 WI App 121
For Sprang: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement, which called for recommendation of probation but left a free hand to argue terms and conditions, by expressly referring to the possibility of treatment in a prison setting and by implicitly endorsing PSI and sex offender report recommendations for prison.

Holding:

¶21 Turning back to Sprang’s claim,

State v. Jesse Liukonen, 2004 WI App 157
For Liukonen: Russell L. Hanson

Issue:Whether the State breached the plea agreement to cap its sentencing recommendation at a total of 17 years’ incarceration, by asserting: “the more I looked at this case, the more I heard from the victims, the more I argue today, I realize that Mr. Liukonen I think got an extreme break by the system here”;

State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision
For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding:

¶7 Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances. This court has held that it may decide an otherwise moot issue if it: (1) is of great public importance; (2) occurs so frequently that a definitive decision is necessary to guide circuit courts;

State v. Sherrie S. Tucker, 2003 WI 12, on certification
For Tucker: Paul LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶4. We hold that in accordance with the standard articulated in Britt, if a circuit court restricts any juror information, the court must make an individualized determination that the jury needs protection and take reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effect to the defendant.

State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals
For Hunt: Rex R. Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶86. We have ruled that “Wisconsin courts permit a more liberal admission of other crimes evidence in sexual assault cases than in other cases.” Davidson, 236 Wis. 2d 537, ¶44; State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92,

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification
For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding:

¶184. We find no clear error in the circuit court’s determination that the third-party hearsay evidence in item 21(a) of Knapp’s offer of proof comes within the recent perception exception under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2),29 to the hearsay rule. Farrell’s inability to recall, 12 years after the fact,

State v. Richard K. Fischer, 2003 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/15/03
For Fischer: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding: Where “the entire exchange consisted of Fischer asking Vento about the evidence against him, and Vento merely responding to Fischer’s questions, after which Fischer would implicate himself … Vento’s words and conduct in merely responding to Fischer’s questions regarding the evidence against him in the two robberies are not interrogation under the Innis test.”