On Point blog, page 7 of 8
Hearsay – Against-Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4) — Declarant Unavailable, Due Diligence to Locate
State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether Williams satisfied the unavailability requirement necessary to admit a declarant’s against-interest hearsay statement exculpating the defendant, § 908.045(4).
Holding: Unavailability is determined by § 908.04(1)(e), and requires a “good-faith effort” and due diligence” in attempting to secure the declarant’s presence, ¶62.
Hearsay – Against-Interest Statement Exculpating Defendant, § 908.045(4) — Right to Present
State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue:/Holding: The exclusion of hearsay evidence proffered by the defense is tested under the “two-part framework” of State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, ¶51, or “whether the proffered evidence was ‘essential to’ the defense, and whether without the proffered evidence, the defendant had ‘no reasonable means of defending his case.’”
Defenses – Imperfect Self-Defense – Jury Instructions
State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9
For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan
Issue/Holding:
¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed in issue by the trial evidence,
Interlocutory Appeal – Issue / Claim Preclusion
State ex rel Thomas Hass v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2001 WI 128
Issue/Holding:
¶10. The issue presented in this case is whether this court should exercise its constitutional superintending and administrative authority to direct the court of appeals to accept all petitions for interlocutory appeal where the circuit court has denied a claim that the state court action is barred by a final federal court judgment on issue and claim preclusion grounds.
Petition for Review Deadline — Pro Se Prisoner “Mailbox Rule”
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Eugene Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119
For Nichols: Jeffrey O. Davis, Daniel J. LaFave
Issue: Whether a pro se prisoner’s petition for review may be accepted for filing in the supreme court, even though received after the filing deadline, where it was delivered to prison authorities for mailing before the deadline.
Holding:
¶11 We decline to interpret the term ‘file’
Warrants – Good-Faith Exception – Violation of “Oath or Affirmation” Requirement
State v. Wilton Tye, 2001 WI 124
For Tye: Mark D. Richards, Christy M. Hall
Issue: Whether evidence seized under a search warrant, invalid on its face because unsupported by oath or affirmation, is covered by the good faith exception.
Holding:
¶24. Fourth and finally, the State asks this court to allow admission of the seized evidence under a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
Constitutional Defenses – Selective Prosecution
State v. Carl R. Kramer, 2001 WI 132, reversing and remanding 2000 WI App 271, 240 Wis. 2d 44, 622 N.W.2d 4
For Kramer: Stephen D. Willett
Issue1: Whether Kramer established a prima facie case for selective prosecution.
Holding: On a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show both discriminatory purpose and effect. The state concedes discriminatory purpose. As to effect: Prosecutorial selectivity is itself non-problematic.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Duration – Traffic Offense – Prolonged by Questioning / Seeking Consent to Search
State v. Lawrence A. Williams/State v. Antwon C. Mathews, 2002 WI 94, reversing 2001 WI App 249, 248 Wis. 2d 361, 635 N.W.2d 869
For Williams: Thomas E. Knothe
For Mathews: Peter J. Thompson
Issue: Whether the traffic stop was unnecessarily prolonged so as to amount to an illegal seizure and invalidate consent to search the car.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right — Unauthorized Practice of Law
State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64, reversing 2001 WI App 145, 246 Wis. 2d 533, 629 N.W.2d 31
For Noble: Thomas H. Boyd
Issue/Holding: Suppression of evidence is required only where it has been obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or of a statute specifically providing for suppression as a remedy. ¶14.
Issue: Whether, assuming that a detective’s examining defendant at a John Doe proceeding amounted to violation of the unauthorized practice of law statute,
Intrastate Detainer Act, § 971.11 — Violation of Right to Speedy Disposition — Discretion to Dismiss with Prejudice as Remedy
State v. Christopher Lee Davis, 2001 WI 136, reversing 2001 WI App 61
For Davis: Jane Krueger Smith
Issue1: Whether a circuit has discretion to dismiss a case with prejudice under § 971.11(7), for failure of the state to bring it on for trial within the 120-day period set by § 971.11(2).
Holding:
¶14. We agree with the court of appeals that ‘the legislature has left the matter up to the courts to exercise its [sic] discretion to dismiss with prejudice in a proper case lest the statute have no meaning at all.’ This interpretation of Wis.