On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Brian Avery, 2013 WI 13 (Wis. S. Ct. 1/30/13), reversing 2011 WI App 148; case activity

The supreme court affirms the trial court’s denial of Brian Avery’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, concluding there isn’t a reasonable probability a jury would have a reasonable doubt about Avery’s guilt. The court also holds Avery was not entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice.

Review of unpublished summary disposition; case activity

Issues (composed by SCOW):

(1) Does Wisconsin recognize the “mature minor doctrine,” a common law rule providing that a minor may consent or refuse to cosent to medical treatment upon a showing of maturity, intelligence and sufficient understanding of the medical condition and treatment alternatives?

(2) Does Wisconsin recognize a mature adolescent’s due process right to refuse unwanted medical treatment?

On review of published decision; case activity

Confrontation — bases of expert opinion as “testimonial” hearsay

Issue (Composed by On Point)

When a State Crime Lab technician concludes there is a DNA match between defendant and assailant based in part on a report of a DNA profile prepared by an outside lab, is the outside lab report “testimonial” for Confrontation Clause purposes, thus requiring the outside lab technician who prepared the report to testify?

On review of certification request; case activity

Invocation of the right to counsel

Issues (Composed by On Point)

1. Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide more protection than Maryland v. Shatzer, ___U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (holding that, even if a defendant has invoked his or her right to counsel, law enforcement may give the Miranda warnings again so long as the defendant has been released from custody for at least fourteen days)?

Jamerson v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 2013 WI 7

Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2012 WI App 32, 340 Wis. 2d 215, 813 N.W.2d 221

This case is not directly applicable to SPD practice, but it is a useful reminder of the multitudinous collateral consequences that may attend a criminal conviction. Here’s the gist:

¶2   The new [2009] caregiver law [relating to child care licenses] imposes a lifetime ban on licensure,

State v. Dennis D. Lemoine, 2013 WI 5, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Lemoine’s inculpatory statement to the police was voluntary:

¶3   We hold that the admission of Lemoine’s statements at trial was not error because, under the totality of the circumstances, the statements were voluntary. The well-established test for voluntariness balances the personal characteristics of the defendant against pressures imposed by law enforcement officers to determine if the pressures exceeded the defendant’s ability to resist.

on review of certification; case activity

Issue (from Certification) 

Whether our holding in Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232, ¶¶26, 28, 267 Wis. 2d 739, 672 N.W.2d 88, that “Wisconsin Stat. § 51.35(1)(e) mandates that a patient transferred to a more restrictive environment receive a hearing within ten days of said transfer,” is contrary to the plain language of the statute.  

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the county adequately proved that Melanie L. is incompetent to exercise informed consent, in that: the county’s expert testified that she was incapable of applying an understanding “to her advantage” instead of “to … her mental illness … in order to make an informed choice” (§ 51.61(1)(g)4.b.); and she recognizes she is mentally ill and needs medication,

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point) 

Whether the municipal court lacks competence to extend the 10-day time deadline for requesting a refusal hearing.

Brefka filed a request for refusal hearing outside the 10-day time limit in § 343.305(9)(a)4. Does a court possess competence to extend that deadline? No dice, according to the court of appeals: “Section 343.305(9)(a)4. specifically mandates that if the request for a hearing is not received within the ten-day period, 

on review of unpublished decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point) 

1. Whether the defendant made the requisite showing for in camera review of the complainant’s privileged therapy records.

2. Whether, given necessity for in camera review, the complainant’s refusal to authority release of the records mandates suppression of her testimony.

The implications for the administration of State v.