On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Fredrick J. Brissette, 230 Wis.2d 82, 601 N.W.2d 678 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Brissette: John D, Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether failure to hold a probable cause hearing within 72 hours of the filing of a Ch. 980 petition causes the court to lose competency to proceed.

Holding: The 72-hour requirement for conducting the probable cause hearing does not begin running if the subject is in custody pursuant to independent process,

State v. Tartorius Allen, 226 Wis.2d 66, 593 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Allen: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: A frisk is an intrusion additional to the stop, and requires additional justification about the presence of a weapon, which the court finds:

Allen and his companion being in a high-crime area, standing alone, would not be enough to create reasonable suspicion. A brief contact with a car,

State v. Wayne R. Anderson, 222 Wis. 2d 403, 588 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Anderson: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

A PSI represents an important source of guidance for a trial court in a sentencing proceeding. A sentencing constitutes a critical phase of a criminal proceeding. And, in a case involving a plea of guilty, no contest, or an Alford plea,

State v. Linda M. Henthorn, 218 Wis. 2d 526, 581 N.W.2d 544 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Henthorn: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

In Hamiel v. State, 92 Wis.2d 656, 666, 285 N.W.2d 639, 646 (1979), the supreme court outlined the two requirements for proof of an attempted crime:

[I]t must … be shown that: (1) the defendant’s actions in furtherance of the crime clearly demonstrate,

State v. Scott Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Kiekhefer: Linda Hornik

Issue/Holding:

In determining whether a statement (confession) was voluntary, courts must independently examine the record and apply the totality of circumstances test. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 286-87 (1991). “In examining all the surrounding circumstances to determine if in fact the consent to search was coerced,

State v. Scott Kiekhefer, 212 Wis. 2d 460, 569 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Kiekhefer: Linda Hornik

Issue/Holding1:

Our inquiry does not end here, however. Because the agents’ entry constituted a violation of Kiekhefer’s Fourth Amendment protections, the question remains whether all of the seized evidence should be suppressed utilizing the attenuation doctrine articulated in Wong Sun v. United States,