On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. William J. Church (II), 2003 WI 74, reversing 2002 WI App 212, 257 Wis. 2d 442, 650 N.W.2d 873; earlier history: State v. William J. Church, 223 Wis.2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), petition for review dismissed as improvidently granted, 2000 WI 90
For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an increase in sentence on re-sentencing violated due process,

State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: A defendant has a “fundamental” constitutional right to testify on his or her own behalf. ¶39.

¶43. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a criminal defendant is waiving his or her right to testify, a circuit court should conduct an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant outside the presence of the jury.

State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶20. We find that the state constitutional right to bear arms is fundamental. It is indeed a rare occurrence for the state constitution’s Declaration of Rights to be amended. See Monks, The End of Gun Control, 2001 Wis. L. Rev. at 249.

State v. Munir A. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, on bypass
For Hamdan: Chris J. Trebatoski

Issue/Holding:

¶46. Under its broad police power, Wisconsin may regulate firearms. It may regulate the time, place, and manner in which firearms are possessed and used. The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. See State v.

State v. Munir A. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, on bypass
For Hamdan: Chris J. Trebatoski

Issue/Holding:

¶20. To convict a person of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Wis. Stat. § 941.23, the State must prove three elements. First, the State must show that a person who is not a peace officer went armed with a dangerous weapon. State v.

State v. Pamela L. Peters, 2003 WI 88, on certification
For Peters: Terry W. Rose

Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case is before the court on certification from the court of appeals on a question of first-impression regarding the scope of Wisconsin’s identity theft statute, Wis. Stat. § 943.201(1999-2000). Specifically, the question is whether a defendant who misappropriates another’s identity and uses it during an arrest and in subsequent bail proceedings to obtain lower bail has done so “to obtain credit,

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification; vacated and remanded on other grounds (for further consideration in light of United States v. Patane, 542 U. S. ____ (2004), Wisconsin v. Knapp, No. 03-590)
For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell

Issue1: Whether the search of Knapp’s bedroom was properly consented to by his brother (George),

State v. Walter Junior Benjamin, 2003 WI 50, affirming 2002 WI App 89
For Hamilton: Robert A. Ramsdell

Issue/Holding:

¶3. Walter’s case raises questions about the application of statutes of limitations to child support collection actions. The issue presented is whether the State, as an assignee of Walter’s deceased former wife, filed a timely action to collect child support arrearages in 2000.

State v. Kevin Harris, 2004 WI 64, affirming as modified 2003 WI App 144, 266 Wis. 2d 200, 667 N.W.2d 813
For Harris: Steven A. Koch

Issue/Holding:

¶16 Therefore, the court of appeals in the instant case misstated the law when it held that “the State violates the Constitution if it withholds the type of information that could form the basis for further investigation by the defense[,]”

State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals
For Hunt: Rex R. Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶72. In determining whether a piece of evidence is unfairly prejudicial, we have held that cautionary instructions help to limit any unfair prejudice that might otherwise result. Plymesser, 172 Wis. 2d at 596-97.¶73. Contrary to Hunt’s argument and the court of appeals’