On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

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State v. Miguel E. Marinez, Jr., 2011 WI 12, reversing unpublished decision; case activity; prior post; for Marinez: Ralph J. Sczygelski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

State v. Janet A. Conner, 2011 WI 8, affirming 2009 WI App 143; for Conner: Stephen E. Mays; case activity; Conner BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Stalking, § 940.32 – Notice of Charge, “Course of Conduct”

Stalking requires proof of, among other elements, a “course of conduct” which “means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time,

court of appeals decision; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether a trial judge has a sua sponte duty to strike a prosepctive juror who is an in-law of the judge.

Whether defense counsel’s use of a peremptory strike to remove the judge’s in-law renders harmless any error in the judge’s failure to remove that juror.

See prior post for further discussion.

on certification; for Spaeth: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issue (formulated by On Point):

Whether a statement made to law enforcement following a probationer’s honest accounting to his probation agent may derive from a “legitimate source wholly independent of compelled testimony” and therefore admissible in a criminal case, notwithstanding the promise of immunity for such statements when made to probation agents.

See prior post for further discussion.

decision below: unpublished; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether Domke was denied effective assistance of counsel by trial counsel’s: failure to object to inadmissible hearsay in the form of a social worker’s testimony reciting the complainant’s recitation of the alleged sexual assaults; producing, without first interviewing her, the complainant’s mother as a defense witness who proceeded to testify that she believed the complainant “100 percent.”

on petition for review of published decision; for Hanson: Robert R. Henak, Chad A. Lanning; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

Whether a driver of a vehicle can be convicted of attempting to elude a law enforcement officer under Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3) while on a cell phone with a 911 intake dispatcher and driving to a police station.

Whether an officer is a “victim” (See State v.

Brown County Dept. of Human Services v. Brenda B., 2011 WI 6, affirming unpublished decision; for Brenda B.: Leonard D. Kachinsky; case activity

¶3   Given that a finding of parental unfitness does not necessarily result in an involuntary termination of parental rights, we determine that the circuit court was not obligated to inform Brenda that by pleading no contest she was waiving her constitutional right to parent.