On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient, where a qualified psychologist testified that respondent had two disorders (paraphilia and personality disorder).

  
State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, reversed on other grounds, 2003 WI 89
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Remedy for a multiplicity violation is left to trial court, applying test in State v. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, ¶57, 249 Wis. 2d 553, 638 N.W.2d 564.

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: Failure of the warrant application to include dismissal of prior criminal charge listed against defendant didn’t mislead judge, who would have inferred that had the charge resulted in conviction that result would have been asserted.

State v. Vernell T. Williams, 2002 WI App 306
For Williams: Michael A. Haakenson

Issue/Holding: Request to search car after purpose of lawful, routine traffic stop satisfied doesn’t make stop unlawful; validity turns on fact-specific inquiry. ¶¶24-25.

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: Work-product is a “qualified privilege” to refuse disclosure of materials generated by counsel in anticipation of litigation that only gives way upon showing of substantial need along with undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent through other means. ¶61. The trial court erroneously exercised discretion in simply rebuffing the claim of privilege without finding the existence of substantial need preparation in anticipation of litigation.

State v. Gabriel L. Ortiz, 2001 WI App 215
For Ortiz: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to restitution until postconviction motion would not incur waiver bar for several reasons: particular claim is of statewide interest; the state never argued waiver in the trial court; the issue is one purely of law. ¶¶11-13.

State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2001 WI App 172, affirmed on other grds., 2002 WI 77, 253 Wis. 2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341
For Leitner: Jim Scott

Issue: Whether the defendant waived his right to object to trial court reliance on certain information by failing to lodge a contemporaneous objection.

Holding:

¶41 … When the prosecutor subsequently argued that the trial court should not consider the convictions,

State v. Deryl B. Beyer, 2001 WI App 167, PFR filed
For Beyer: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the trial court lost competence because the 72-hour time limit for a probable cause hearing, imposed by § 980.04(2), had passed.

Holding: Although the statutory time limit uses the term “shall,” it is directory rather than mandatory. “¶11. Under Wis. Stat. § 980.02(2), the State has only one ninety-day window of opportunity to petition for commitment.

State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to frisk Kelsey, a juvenile, before placing her in a squad car and transporting her home at her mother’s request.

Holding: The most significant feature of this fractured ruling is majority support for the principle that there is no “blanket-rule that a police officer may frisk a person just because the officer is going to place that person inside a police vehicle.”

State v. Murle E. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, reversing 2000 WI App 137, 237 Wis. 2d 313, 614 N.W.2d 25
For Perkins: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether and to what extent threats are protected from prosecution under the first amendment.

Holding:

¶17 This court agrees with the State and the defendant that some threatening words are protected speech under the First Amendment.