On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Matthew C. Janssen, 219 Wis.2d 362, 580 N.W.2d 260 (1998), affirming 213 Wis. 2d 471, 570 N.W.2d 746 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Janssen: Eugene A. Bartman, Brian G. Figy, SPD, Appleton Trial

Issue: Whether the flag desecration statute is constitutional.

Holding: The flag desecration statute, sec. 946.05, violates first amendment overbreadth principles, and can’t be saved by severing the unconstitutional portions.

Malvern Sullivan v. Waukesha County, 218 Wis.2d 458, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998), on certification
For Sullivan: William A. Denny

Holding: A DOT training pamphlet, explaining physical and mental impairment as the level of alcohol concentration increases, is held admissible under the sec. 908.03(8) (public records and reports) exception to the hearsay rule. The court stresses that the pamphlet’s data “are factual and were made pursuant to the department’s duty to administer and enforce the laws….”

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether the defense engaged in attacks on the complainant’s character for truthfulness so as to open the door to opinion testimony that she was truthful.

Holding: § 906.08 supports rehabilitation of a witness “only in limited situations,”

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether the state was properly allowed to admit into evidence, under the rule of completeness, certain oral “challenged statements in their entirety, to show consistency on significant factual issues,”

State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether an offer of proof must be in question-and-answer form.

Holding:

¶15 The court in Milenkovich did not say, and we do not say now, that every offer of proof should be accompanied by a question and answer format. There are cases in which the evidentiary problem posed is easily resolved by statements of counsel.

State v. Ronald A. Hansford, 219 Wis.2d 226, 580 N.W.2d 171 (1998), on certification
For Hansford: Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a bail jumping conviction may be sustained where based solely on commission of a new crime while out on bond, and the new crime is reversed on appeal

Holding: In such a situation, the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.

In re Paternity of Roberta Jo W.: Roberta Jo W. v. Leroy W., 218 Wis.2d 225, 578 N.W.2d 185 (1998), on certification.

Holding:

The second issue is whether the circuit court erred in terminating court-appointed counsel upon the filing of a notice of appeal. We hold that after a notice of appeal was filed, the case was within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals,

State v. Vance Ferron, 219 Wis.2d 481, 579 N.W.2d 654 (1998), affirming, as modified, 214 Wis. 2d 268, 570 N.W.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Ferron: Jane Krueger Smith

Issue: Whether a prospective juror’s equivocations during voir dire required that he be struck for cause.

Holding: The trial court erred in refusing to strike for cause a potential juror who acknowledged only that he “probably” could set aside his opinion that a truly innocent defendant would testify.

State v. Lance Terry Konrath, 218 Wis.2d 290, 577 N.W.2d 601 (1998), affirming unpub. decision
For Konrath: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding: Forfeiture statute § 346.65(6) authorizes a civil, remedial in rem proceeding, and is not facially unconstitutional; because the statute is civil, double jeopardy doesn’t apply; the proceeding provides sufficient notice to satisfy due process (with caution that immediate seizure appropriate in certain circumstances).

State v. Pablo Cruz Santana, 220 Wis. 2d 674, 584 N.W.2d 151 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Santana: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Judicial disqualification under § 757.19(2)(g), Stats., concerns not an outsider’s objective determination, but rather the judge’s subjective determination. See State v. American TV & Appliance, 151 Wis.2d 175, 182, 443 N.W.2d 662, 665 (1989). It mandates a judge’s disqualification “