On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Whether Wis.  Stat. § 343.303, which bars the admission of certain preliminary breath test results in motor vehicle prosecutions, applies to PBT results obtained by Emergency Room staff?

Issue (again, composed by On Point)

WIS JI- Criminal 1185, which is based upon § 885.135(2g)(c), permits a jury to find a defendant was intoxicated at the time of an accident if it is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s alcohol level was 0.08 or greater.  

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the state’s Petition for Review)

Whether the court of appeals went beyond the boundaries of an appellate court when it reversed the trial court’s decision based on a sua sponte argument–and subsequent appellate factual determinations–that was never presented to the trial court.

Purtell was on probation for animal cruelty convictions, and as a condition of probation was allowed access to computers only for school or work.

Steve P. v. Maegan F., 2013 WI 89, dismissing review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; per curiam (Justice Prosser did not participate); case activity

This is every appellate lawyer’s nightmare–pouring your heart into an emotionally charged case presenting a provocative legal issue briefed by 5 different parties and amici and then having the supreme court declare that review was improvidently granted.

The record for this case is confidential so On Point’s explanation of what happened may be imprecise. 

Review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Was Nellessen entitled to an in camera review under Wis. Stat.§ 905.10(3)(b) to determine whether an informant may be able to give testimony necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence, when the defendant claims she was unaware there were controlled substances in the trunk of her car,

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Was Vogt seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when a police officer pulled up behind Vogt’s parked car, approached the car, rapped on the driver’s window, and directed Vogt to roll the window down?

Petitions for review aren’t available on the court’s website, so the issue statement is based on the brief filed in,

Petitions for Review.  SCOW plans to hold a petitions conference on Monday–a good thing since as of September 30th there were a whopping 331 petitions for review pending.  One was filed as far back as 2009 (2009AP1955), 10 were filed in consolidated cases back in 2010 (2009AP2266 et al.) and 8 were filed in 2012.  The rest landed in the clerk’s office during 2013.  Of those 331 petitions for review,

Review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Does Wis. Stat. § 972.11(2)(b)1. bar evidence of prior consensual sexual activity between a defendant and complainant in a case involving alleged forcible criminal conduct because the consensual conduct is not relevant to a material fact in the case?

Petitions for review are not electronically filed,

Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sharon A. Riek, 2103 WI 81 (per curiam), affirming referee’s dismissal of disciplinary complaint; case activity

The supreme court holds that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose information to the defense under SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) does not impose a broader duty to disclose than the constitutional duty imposed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller, 2013 WI 75, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity

Witucki, a state crime lab analyst, testified that Richard Deadwiller’s DNA matched a DNA profile derived from semen found on vaginal and cervical swabs collected from two sexual assault victims. (¶¶2, 10). But Witucki did not derive the DNA profile from the semen.

 State v. Tramell Starks,  2013 WI 69, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, case activity. Majority opinion by Justice Gableman, with a dissent by Justice Bradley and joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Crooks

On Point is pleased to present this guest post by Attorney Rob Henak, an expert on Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motions and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.