On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Shantell T. Harbor, 2011 WI 28, affirming unpublished decision; for Harbor: Joseph E. Redding; case activity

Sentence Modification – New Factor

The “new factor” test for sentence modification has split into “two divergent lines of cases”: Rosado v. State, 70 Wis. 2d 280, 288, 234 N.W.2d 69 (1975) (fact(s) highly relevant to, but not brought out at, 

State v. Marvin L. Beauchamp, 2011 WI 27, affirming 2010 WI App 42; for Beauchamp: Craig S. Powell; case activity

Confrontation – Dying Declaration, § 908.045(3)

¶34  We therefore, like every state court that has considered the dying declaration exception since Crawford, take a position consistent with the language of Crawford and Giles and decline to hold that the constitutional right to confront witnesses is violated by the admission of statements under the dying declaration hearsay exception. 

State v. Brad E. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, reversing 2010 WI App  11; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee; amicus: Colleen D. Ball, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Forbush’s 6th amendment right to counsel had already attached – because a criminal complaint had been filed – and he had retained counsel before officers began interrogating him on that charge in the absence of his attorney.

State v. Alan Keith Burns, 2011 WI 22, affirming unpublished decision; for Burns: David R. Karpe; case activity

The court rejects Burns’s claim for a new trial in the interest of justice premised on three grounds: 1. Burns was unable to cross-examine the complainant on her implication that he took her virginity; 2. evidence of prior sexual assaults of the complainant by his father,

on petition for review of summary order; for Goss: Daniel J. Chapman; case activity

Issue (formulated by On Point:

Whether probable cause of intoxication to administer a preliminary breath test under § 343.303 was shown by the smell of alcohol on the driver along with four prior OWI convictions.

The catch: with 4 priors, Goss’s legal blood alcohol content limit would have been .02. Given that greatly reduced threshold,

on petition for review of unpublished order; for State Public Defender: Joseph N. Ehmann; for amicus (WACDL): Robert R. Henak; for amicus (Appellate Section, State Bar): Anne B. Kearney; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether counsel is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard before the court of appeals imposes a monetary or other penalty for an alleged violation of rules of appellate procedure.

Whether the court of appeals’

on bypass petition; for Nordberg: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issue:

Whether someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4).

The court of appeals held, in State v. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60, 324 Wis. 2d 465, 782 N.W.2d 443,

court of appeals decision; for Dowdy: Bryan J. Cahill; Amicus: Dustin Haskell (SPD), Robert Henak (WACDL); case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether authority granted a circuit court by § 973.09(3)(a) to “extend probation for a stated period or modify the terms and conditions thereof,” includes the power to reduce the length of the term of probation.

Whether a circuit court has inherent authority to reduce the length of the term of probation.

State v. Miguel E. Marinez, Jr., 2011 WI 12, reversing unpublished decision; case activity; prior post; for Marinez: Ralph J. Sczygelski

Evidence – Other-Acts, § 904.04(2) – “Sullivan” Analysis

¶19  To guide courts in determining whether other-acts evidence is admissible for a proper purpose under Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(a), we developed a three-prong test.  Sullivan,

Evelyn Werner v. Kenneth Hendree, 2011 WI 10, reversing 2009 WI App 103; case activity

Appellate Procedure – Finality and Appealability

A circuit court order rejecting state indemnification of an employee being sued was non-final and thus absorbed in the final judgment later entered as to liability and damages.

¶62  An appeal may be taken as a matter of right only from a final judgment or a final order.