On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Rovaugn Hill, 2000 WI App 259, 240 Wis.2d 1, 622 N.W.2d 34
For Hill: Gerald P. Boyle

Issue: Whether reprosecution should be barred on double jeopardy grounds, because prosecutorial overreaching had caused a mistrial.

Holding: “[D]ouble jeopardy bars a retrial when the defendant has successfully moved for a mistrial, if the prosecutor acted with intent to gain another chance to convict or to harass the defendant with multiple prosecutions.”

State v. Kenneth M. Herrmann, 2000 WI App 38, 233 Wis. 2d 135, 608 N.W.2d 406
For Herrmann: Peter J. Morin

Issue: Whether officers executing a search warrant for Landis’s apartment exceeded the scope of the warrant when they entered and searched Herrmann’s separate residential unit on the same floor.

Holding: The officers neither knew nor had reason to know that there were two apartments on the floor being searched,

State v. Kenneth M. Herrmann, 2000 WI App 38, 233 Wis. 2d 135, 608 N.W.2d 406
For Herrmann: Peter J. Morin

Issue: Whether consent to search was valid, immediately following unlawful entry of the occupant’s apartment.

Holding: Given the “coercive circumstances” – entry in middle of night, with officers yelling “search warrant” – any consent Herrmann may have given was neither voluntary nor attenuated from the illegal entry.

State v. Frank Curiel, 227 Wis.2d 389, 597 N.W.2d 697 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Curiel: Jack. C. Hoag, Sedor & Hoag.

Issue/Holding: “¶7 Is the verdict of the court supported by the evidence? We hold that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the commitment of the defendant under Wis. Stat. ch. 980.” The testimony of a single expert witness that Curiel was much more likely than not to reoffend suffices to uphold the commitment (even though that witness did not personally interview Curiel).

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,