On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

Review of court of appeals summary disposition (PDF here: MINERVA LOPEZ ORDER 3 8 13); case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court err in concluding that it should deny Lopez’s pre-sentencing plea withdrawal motion because plea withdrawal would substantially prejudice the state?

This issue statement is based on the summary disposition issued by the court of appeals and a review of the parties’ court of appeals briefs.

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the Petition for Review):

Were Robinson’s state and federal constitutional rights against double jeopardy violated when, after imposing a sentence and remanding her to start serving the sentence forthwith, the circuit court recalled the case the next day and increased her sentence, not based on an error of law or a misstatement of fact?

On review of court of appeals certification; case activity: Pinno; Seaton

Issue (from certification):

Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?

See our previous post for further discussion.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether the jury instructions on self defense as it pertained to second degree reckless homicide fairly and adequately explained the defense to the jury.

2. Whether trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence.

Petitions for review aren’t available on the court’s website, so issue-formulation is educated guesswork based on the decision of the court of appeals.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether there was sufficient proof that Mary F.-R. evidenced a “substantial probability of physical harm” to herself or others and was therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)(2).

2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because it provides for a jury of six in ch.

State v. James G. Brereton, 2013 WI 17, affirming 2011 WI App 127; case activity

Search and seizure of vehicle — attaching GPS tracking device

After lawfully stopping Brereton, the police removed him from his car, towed it to a lot, and, after obtaining a warrant, attached a GPS tracking device. The car was returned to Brereton, and ensuing monitoring led to information connecting him to a crime.

State v. Juan G. Gracia, 2013 WI 15; affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Warrantless Entry – “community caretaker” exception

Entry into Gracia’s bedroom by police, who had linked him to a serious traffic accident, was justified by the community caretaker doctrine because the police had an objectively reasonable basis to believe Gracia needed assistance, distinguishing State v.

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?