On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶39      Jorgensen’s right to confrontation was also violated during the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor took what the jury had improperly heard during the trial a step further. She “testified” that Jorgensen was a “chronic alcoholic” who did not acknowledge his problem,

State v. David G. Straszkowski, 2008 WI 65, affirming summary order
For Straszkowski Philip J. Brehm

Issue/Holding: The sentencing court may consider uncharged and unproven offenses, ¶36; id n. 20:

State v. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, ¶45, 253 Wis.  2d 449, 646 N.W.2d 341. See also State v. McQuay , 154 Wis. 2d 116,

Walworth Co. DHHS v. Andrea L.O., 2008 WI 46, on Certification

TPR – Elements, Ground of Continuing Need of Protection and Services, Generally

Issue/Holding:

¶6 There are four elements to this ground for termination. First, the child must have been placed out of the home for a cumulative total of more than six months pursuant to court orders containing the termination of parental rights notice.

State v. Keith A. Davis, 2008 WI 71, on Certification
For Davis: Chris A. Gramstrup

Issue/Holding:

¶38      In the case at hand, we conclude, as did the circuit court, that the defendant’s statement was voluntary. The record contains no evidence that would give rise to any concerns regarding his personal characteristics. Davis, at the time this occurred, was 43 years old. While the defendant’s brief indicates that Davis only possesses a middle school level education,

State v. Keith A. Davis, 2008 WI 71, on Certification
For Davis: Chris A. Gramstrup

Issue/Holding:

¶20      Principles applicable to polygraph testing are equally applicable to voice stress analysis. See Wis. Stat. § 905.065(1); 7 Daniel D. Blinka, Wisconsin Evidence§ 5065.1 (2d ed. 2001) (concluding that there is little reason to treat the forms of honesty testing mentioned in § 905.065 differently,

State v. Keith A. Davis, 2008 WI 71, on Certification
For Davis: Chris A. Gramstrup

Issue/Holding1: Admissibility of a statement made in connection with a voice stress analysis (or other form of “honesty test”) turns on whether the statement is “totally discrete” from the testing procedure as gauged by the following factors:

¶23      Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Davis’s statement was not so closely associated with the voice stress analysis test so as to render it one event;

State v. Ronell E. Harris, 2008 WI 15, affirming unpublished decision
For Harris: Ralph J. Sczygelskis

Issue/Holding: Various discovery and evidentiary violations amounted to harmless error, whether taken singly (¶¶41-59, ¶87-90) or cumulatively (¶¶109-113).Harmless error discussions are largely fact-specific, and this case is no exception. But it is noteworthy for its recognition that the “court has formulated the test for harmless or prejudicial error in a variety of way,” ¶42.

State v. Bruce Duncan MacArthur, 2008 WI 72, on Certification
For MacArthur: Alex Flynn
Amicus: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding:

¶50      Our approach to tolling is guided by United States v. Florez, a Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion that articulated the requisite burden of proof and standard of review for the federal tolling provision. Florez,

State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue: Whether execution of a search warrant for business records exceeded the warrant’s scope in that the warrant: authorized only the search for and seizure of records that related to a specific business with specifically named clients; and also authorized only a search of that business’s office space and not the defendant’s personal office within that space.

State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision
For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶15 Extrinsic sources include legislative history. Id. The drafting records of the Electronic Surveillance Control Law state that the law “represents Wisconsin implementation of the electronic surveillance portion of [Title III],” the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.