On Point blog, page 76 of 133
Appellate Procedure – Supreme Court Review, Scope – Certification: Authority to Reach All Issues Raised Below
State v. Jordan A. Denk, 2008 WI 130, on certification
For Denk: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶29 When we accept certification from the court of appeals, we acquire jurisdiction of the entire appeal. We thus consider all issues raised before the court of appeals. See Wis. Stat. §§ 808.05(2) and (Rule) 809.61; State v.
Harmless Error: Relationship to Plain Error Analysis
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶21 Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) (2003-04) recognizes the plain error doctrine. [3] The plain error doctrine allows appellate courts to review errors that were otherwise waived by a party’s failure to object. State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78,
Review — Reconfinement Sentence (After Revocation of Extended Supervision), Imposed by Different Judge – Review of Original Sentencing Transcript not Absolute Necessity
State v. Clayborn L. Walker, 2008 WI 34, reversing 2007 WI App 142
For Walker: Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue: Whether the judge is required, at a TIS reconfinement hearing, to have read the original sentencing transcript.
Holding:
¶3 We agree with the State and conclude that State v. Gee [3] misinterpreted our decision in Brown.
Mootness – Reconfinement Proceeding
State v. Clayborn L. Walker, 2008 WI 34, reversing 2007 WI App 142
For Walker: Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue/Holding:
¶14 As a preliminary matter, while the issue before the court is moot because Walker has completed his reconfinement term and thus our decision will not affect the underlying controversy, we may at times consider a moot issue if it is of “great public importance or arises frequently enough to warrant a definitive decision to guide the circuit courts.”
Confrontation – Certified Bank (“Business”) Records – Nontestimonial
State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208
For Doss: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether the authenticating affidavit of a bank record was “testimonial” within the Confrontation Clause.
Holding:
¶45 The parties do not dispute that the circuit court correctly described Crawford and Manuel as identifying business records as nontestimonial,
OWI – Compliance with § 343.395(4)
Waukesha County v. Eric D. Smith, 2008 WI 23, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding: By reading the required statutory information verbatim, the officer fully complied with § 343.305(4); he did not err by failing to inform the driver that he might incur penalties different from those in Wisconsin relative to the state that issued his license nor by telling the driver that if he refused to take the chemical test he would get a hearing within 10 days.
Enhancers — § 939.632, School Zone — Constitutionality
State v. Leonard J. Quintana, 2008 WI 33, affirming 2007 WI App 29
For Quintana: James B. Connell, Robyn J. DeVos, William R. Kerner
Issue/Holding:
¶81 We conclude that the school zone penalty enhancer is not unconstitutional as applied to Quintana. The legislature has sought to increase the penalty for those who commit violent crimes within 1,000 feet of “school premises.”
Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) — “Oral Communications” — Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Embedded in Definition
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision
For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether tape-recorded statements were “oral communication” as defined in Wis. Stat. § 968.27(12).
Holding:
¶16 The legislative history of Title III indicates that Congress intended the definition of “oral communication” in Title III, which reads nearly identically to the definition contained in the Electronic Surveillance Control Law,
§ 940.25(1)(a), Injury by Intoxicated Use — No Duty to Clarify Meaning of “Materially Impaired” Element Upon Jury Request
State v. Jonathan J. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92, reversing 2007 WI App 240
For Hubbard: Steven W. Zaleski
Issue: Whether, upon jury request for clarification of “materially impaired” under the instructions for injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, § 940.25(1)(a), the trial court properly responded that the should “give all words not otherwise defined in the jury instructions their ordinary meaning.”
Holding:
¶57 The circuit court had discretion to determine the necessity for,
§§ 779.02(5), 943.20(1)(b), Theft by Contractor – Elements – Claims Against Money in Trust Fund Must Be Paid Proportionately
State v. Angela A. Keyes / Matthew E. Keyes, 2008 WI 54, affirming in part and reversing in part, 2007 WI App 163
For both Keyes: Michael J. Devanie
Issue/Holding1:
¶21 The Keyes were charged with theft by contractor under Wis. Stat. § 779.02(5), part of Wisconsin’s construction lien law. … The statute prohibits the use of the money in the trust fund for any purpose other than paying claims until such time as the claims have been paid in full.