On Point blog, page 762 of 790

Plea-Withdrawal, Pre-Sentencing – Trial Court Anticipates Not Following Plea Bargain

State v. Adrian L. Williams, 2000 WI 78, 236 Wis. 2d 293, 613 N.W.2d 132, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals For Williams: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether “this court [should] adopt a new rule of procedure, which would require that if a trial judge anticipates exceeding the state’s sentence recommendation under […]

Guilty Pleas – Suppression Appeal (§ 971.31(10)) – Harmless Error Analysis

State v. Jerome G. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, 233 Wis. 2d 508, 608 N.W.2d 376 For Semrau: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether (assumed) erroneous refusal to suppress evidence was harmless on appeal following guilty plea, under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10). Holding: Strength of admissible evidence, apart from unsuppressed evidence, placed Semrau […]

Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Ignorance of Sex Offender Registration – Prejudice to State

State v. George R. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199, affirming State v. Bollig,, 224 Wis.2d 621, 593 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1999) For Bollig: Thomas E. Knothe, Collins, Quillin & Knothe, Ltd. Issue: Whether the trial court should have granted Bollig’s pre-sentencing motion to withdraw guilty plea based on […]

§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Guilt — as Distinct from Misconduct Evidence

State v. Michael R. Bauer, 2000 WI App 206, 238 Wis. 2d 6887, 617 N.W.2d 902 For Bauer: Thomas Voss Issue: Whether evidence that the defendant, while awaiting trial, solicited the murders of people who were going to testify against him was admissible. Holding: ¶2            Bauer argues that the solicitation evidence was other acts evidence […]

§ 904.01, Relevance – Silence in Face of Accusation

State v. Ondra Bond, 2000 WI App 118, 237 Wis. 2d 633, 614 N.W.2d 552, affirmed by equally divided court, 2001 WI 56. For Bond: William Coleman; Janet Barnes, Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The prosecution may not use at trial the fact that a defendant stood mute in the face of an accusation. ¶27.

§ 904.01, Relevance – Victim’s Medical Records

State v. Frank M. Ruszkiewicz, 2000 WI App 125, 237 Wis. 2d 441, 613 N.W.2d 893 For Ruszkiewicz: Mark S. Rosen Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order production of the victim’s police and medical records, sought on the theory that they might show a condition that would cause her to bruise easily […]

Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor — Failure to Comply with Express Terms of Sentencing Recommendation

State v. Robert D. Hanson, 2000 WI App 10, 232 Wis.2d 291, 606 N.W.2d 278 For Hanson: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate. Issue: Whether the prosecutor breached the plea bargain by failing to expressly recommend the agreed 10 year sentencing cap, on a 15-year exposure. Holding: Even though the prosecutor did not expressly recite […]

Misconduct, § 904.04(2) – Motive and Intent — Videotaped Sex Acts of Young Females — Relevance to Child-Enticement

State v. Gabriel DeRango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, affirming State v. Derango, 229 Wis. 2d 1, 599 N.W.2d 27 For Derango: Robert G. LeBell Issue: Whether the trial court properly admitted, as misconduct evidence relevant to motive and intent on child enticement-related charges, depictions of sex acts by young females on videotapes […]

Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor — Less Than Neutral Recitation of Recommendation

State v. Robert D. Hanson, 2000 WI App 10, 232 Wis.2d 291, 606 N.W.2d 278 For Hanson: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate. Issue: Whether the prosecutor undermined a 10-year sentencing cap by emphasizing that “this is an extremely violent case,” along with other aggravating factors. Holding: By stressing to the trial court that she […]

Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — Prior Resisting Arrest — Similarity to Charged Offense

State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530 For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro Issue: Whether a prior act involving drunken resisting arrest was properly admitted into evidence. Holding: The prior act was admitted on the permissible purposes of showing intent and absence of mistake; had probative value due to strong […]