On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Dale L. Smith, 2006 WI 74, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Allison Ritter

Issue/Holding:

¶16      The sole question we must address on appeal is whether Smith was denied the right to an impartial jury by the circuit court’s refusal to strikeCharlotte for cause. Smith argues that Charlotte should have been disqualified as objectively biased because she was employed by the prosecuting attorney.

State v. Charles W. Mark, 2006 WI 78, affirming 2005 WI App 62, 2005 WI App 62
For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether evidence of probation supervision was relevant to future dangerousness, and therefore should have been admitted into evidence.

Issue:

¶41      … (T)he plain language of Wis. Stat. § 980.01(7) makes the existence of a mental disorder—not any extrinsic factors—the first step in determining dangerousness and the substantial probability of the person engaging in future acts of sexual violence.

State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification
For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Amicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales

Issue/Holding: (Procedure generally described, State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, ¶17, quoted with approval, ¶¶18-23; see also ¶¶35-41, taking note of Wilkinson v. Cowan, 231 F.3d 347 (7th Cir.

State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification
For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison
AppellateAmicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales

Issue/Holding:

¶49      We conclude that the attorney general comes under the purview of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) and (4m) (2005-06) because, in criminal appeals, the attorney general is often the State’s successor to the district attorney. … We therefore conclude that under §§ 972.15 and 967.02(7) the attorney general’s office should submit any requests to obtain a copy of the PSI report and to disclose its contents in the State’s brief to the circuit court for the purposes of a no-merit appeal.

State v. Roger S. Walker, 2006 WI 82, affirming as modified summary order
For Walker: James Rebholz

Issue/Holding: In order to obtain review, a defendant must file a postconviction motion to modify sentence, even if the event was a re-sentencing which came to the same result as originally imposed.

¶37      In the hope of clarifying appellate procedure, we conclude that when a defendant seeks modification of the sentence imposed at resentencing,

 State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2006 WI 77, reversing 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel

Issue/Holding:

¶36      The parties agree with the court of appeals that the circuit court’s communications with the jury outside the presence of the defendant is error, violating the defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to be present.  We agree with the parties.…

¶63      (W)hatever the requirement for an accused’s waiver of the right to be present when a circuit court communicates with the jury,

Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals, 2006 WI 86

Issue/Holding:

¶14      By granting deference to agency interpretations, the court has not abdicated, and should not abdicate, its authority and responsibility to interpret statutes and decide questions of law. Some cases, however, mistakenly fail to state, before launching into a discussion of the levels of deference, that the interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law to be determined by a court. 

State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
For Shirley E.: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶63      Depriving a parent of the statutory right to counsel in a termination of parental rights proceeding deprives the parent of a basic protection without which, according to our legislature, a termination of a parental rights proceeding cannot reliably serve its function.

State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, affirming 2006 WI App 44
For Brown: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Amicus: Robert R. Henak and Amelia L. Bizzaro; Walter J. Dickey & David E. Schultz

Issue/Holding:

¶22     We conclude that a reconfinement decision, like an initial sentencing decision, involves the circuit court’s discretion, and we review the circuit court’s decision to determine whether that discretion was erroneously exercised. 

State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, affirming, 2004 WI App 39
For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding1: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release did not “shock the conscience,” hence did not violate substantive due process, where the failure occurred despite good-faith, substantial efforts to comply with the order, ¶31.

Issue/Holding2: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release violated procedural due process.