On Point: Uncategorized

State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision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State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals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.”

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

Issue/Holding:

¶19. Applying Davis and Jennings here, we conclude that Fischer’s statement to detectives that if the officers read him his rights he would not answer any questions and would request an attorney is sufficiently ambiguous or equivocal such that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that Fischer might be invoking the right to counsel.

Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46

Issue/Holding: ¶12 n. 7:

We note that in this opinion we do cite to two unpublished opinions from other states. Wisconsin Stat. § 809.23(3) does not prohibit us from doing so. In Brandt v. LIRC, 160 Wis. 2d 353, 466 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1991), aff’d, 166 Wis. 2d 623, 480 N.W.2d 494 (1992),

State v. Timothy M. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258
For Ziebart: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether defendant was entitled to postconviction discovery on the issue of whether the sexual assault complainant had been located at a drug house and held in custody pending her testimony.
Holding:

¶32. A defendant has a right to postconviction discovery if the desired evidence is relevant to an issue of consequence.

State v. Thomas A. Drexler, 2003 WI App 169, PFR filed 8/1/03
For Drexler: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding: In support of a collateral attack on a prior OWI conviction used to enhance a current OWI prosecution, Drexler submitted an affidavit asserting that the trial court had not advised him of his right to counsel: although this was enough to establish a prima facie case of denial of right to counsel,

State v. Cara A. Erickson, 2003 WI App 43

Issue/Holding: The following facts established probable cause to arrest, hence to take a warrantless blood draw, for OWI:

¶15. In this case, the officer knew the following information when he ordered the blood draw. At about 5:40 a.m. on August 27, 2000, less than two hours prior to the blood draw, Erickson crashed her pickup truck into a vehicle with sufficient force to set the vehicle on fire.