On Point blog, page 127 of 133
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 found in the defendant’s home.
§ 904.04 – Greater Latitude Rule in Sexual Assaults
State v. Dale H. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606, reversing State v. Davidson, 222 Wis. 2d 233, 589 N.W.2d 38
For Davidson: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead
Issue: Whether, on a charge of sexually assaulting a 13-year old niece while on a camping trip, evidence of the defendant’s conviction ten years previous for sexually assaulting a 6-year old girl in a church basement was admissible.
§904.04 – Greater Latitude Rule
State v. Edward A. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629, on certification, habeas denied, Hammer v. Karlen, 342 F. 3d 807 (7th Cir. 2003)
For Hammer: Rex Anderegg
Issue: Whether, in a trial for sexual assault of several adolescent males while staying at defendant’s parents’ home, evidence that defendant fondled an adult male, 5-7 years earlier while a guest at his home in Ohio,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Sex Offender Registration Requirement
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 a guilty plea colloquy involving a crime that would require sex offender registration under Wis. Stat. § 301.45 must inform the defendant of that requirement for the plea to be voluntary.
Rape-Shield, § 972.11 – Generally
State v. Edward A. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629, on certification, habeas denied, Hammer v. Karlen, 342 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2003)
For Hammer: Rex Anderegg
Issue/Holding: The rape shield statute will be overcome if the five-part test of State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 656, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990) is met.
Competency – Time Limits for Exam, In- vs. Out-Patient
State ex rel. Michael J. Hager v. Marten, 226 Wis.2d 687, 594 N.W.2d 791 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Hager, Gerhardt F. Getzin, SPD, Wausau
Issue: Whether the § 971.14(2) time limit, requiring completion of competency exam w/in 15 days “of the arrival of the defendant at the inpatient facility,” was violated.
Holding: Resolution turns on whether the court specifically ordered an inpatient exam. No written order was entered,
Double Jeopardy – Remedy: dismissal with prejudice prior to attachment of jeopardy
State v. John P. Krueger, 224 Wis.2d 59, 588 N.W.2d 921 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Krueger: Gary S. Cirilli
Holding: The court reaffirms the holding of State v. Braunsdorf, 98 Wis.2d 569, 297 N.W.2d 808 (1980) that prior to attachment of jeopardy trial courts don’t possess the authority to dismiss a charge with prejudice except for denial of speedy trial.
Enhanced Penalties – Proof: Admission — Sufficiency Under § 973.12(1).
State v. David C. Liebnitz, 231 Wis.2d 272, 603 N.W.2d 208 (1999), on certification
For Liebnitz: Rex R. Anderegg.
Issue: Whether the defendant sufficiently admitted to an alleged repeater allegation so as to justify enhanced sentencing where, although he never disputed the allegation and in fact received the bargained-for sentence, he never distinctly admitted the repeater allegation.
Holding: Because the complaint and information both set forth the details of the repeater allegation along with the enhanced penalty;
Forfeiture – Return of Seized Property
Leonard L. Jones v. State, 226 Wis.2d 565, 594 N.W.2d 738 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Jones: Colleen D. Ball, Reinhart, Boerner, Van Dueren, Norris & Riesselbach.
Issue/Holding: Procedure for obtaining return of property seized under Uniform Controlled Substances Act is outlined in two seemingly overlapping statutes, §§ 961.55 & 968.20. The former, part of UCSA, mandates that “(a)ny property seized but not forfeited shall be returned to its rightful owner.”
Petition for Review — Deadline Lost through Clerical Error — Reinstate Via Habeas
State ex rel. Jose DeJesus Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, 225 Wis.2d 446, 593 N.W.2d 48 (1999), original action
For Fuentes: Robert T. Ruth.
The supreme court rectifies loss of the petition for review deadline caused by the court of appeal’s clerical error (failure to mail a copy of decision to appellate counsel). The remedy, which Fuentes followed, is to seek habeas relief in the supreme court. The court grants his petition,