On Point blog, page 1 of 3
SVP – Supervised Release Procedure
State v. Edwin Clarence West, 2011 WI 83, affirming unpublished opinion; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity [Companion case: State v. Nordberg, 2011 WI 84 (same result, controlled by West).]
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)(cg),
Postconviction Hearing (§ 974.06) – IAC Claim – Pleading Requirements
State v. David J. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, reversing unpublished decision; for Balliette: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Balliette’s pro se § 974.06 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, was insufficiently pleaded to require an evidentiary hearing.
Unless you’re an appellate specialist or a masochist –
Evidentiary Foundation / Hearsay: Computer-Generated Report
State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Computer-Generated Report (Electronic Monitoring Device) – Foundation
Expert testimony isn’t necessary to lay a foundation for admissibility for a computer-generated EMD report:
¶28 Closing down a trial is not to be taken lightly, which is why the requirement of expert testimony is an extraordinary one.
Juvenile Delinquency Disposition – Expelled Student; Supervisory Writs; Statutory Construction Principle – Titles
Madison Metropolitan School District v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2011 WI 72, affirming summary order; case activity
Juvenile Delinquency Disposition – Expelled Student
A juvenile delinquency court lacks authority to order a school district to provide educational services to a delinquent whom the district has expelled.
¶5 We conclude:
…
(2) A circuit court does not have statutory authority to order a school district to provide alternative educational services to a juvenile who has been expelled from school by a lawful and unchallenged expulsion order but is still residing in the community.
Confrontation – Limits on Cross-Examination
State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2011 WI 73, reversing unpublished COA decision; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; case activity
Although the State’s theory of motive was that Rhodes intentionally shot and killed the victim in retaliation for beating Rhodes’ sister the day before, the trial court reasonably precluded cross-examination of the sister on a prior instance where the victim severely beat her without response from Rhodes.
Defendant’s Right (Not) to Testify
State v. Rickey R. Denson, 2011 WI 70, affirming unpublished summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski; case activity
¶8 A criminal defendant’s constitutional right not to testify is a fundamental right that must be waived knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. However, we conclude that circuit courts are not required to conduct an on-the-record colloquy to determine whether a defendant is knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving his or her right not to testify.
Statutory Construction – Legislative Acquiesence / History
Steven T. Kilian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 2011 WI 65; case activity
Statutory Construction – Legislative Acquiesence
¶30 n. 12:
“Legislative failure to act is ordinarily weak evidence of legislative intention to acquiesce in or countenance a judicial or executive branch interpretation. . . . Under proper circumstances, however, inaction by the legislature may be evidence of legislative intent.” Schill v.
Recusal / Disqualification, Supreme Court Justice: Reviewability of Individual Decision
order denying motion for reconsideration of in: State v. Dimitri Henley, 2011 WI 67; for Henley: Keith A. Findley; case activity; additional history: 2010 WI 12 (memorandum decision, Roggensack, J.); court order (5/24/10)
Henley’s motion to reconsider, though directed formally to the decision reversing grant of new trial, as a practical matter is directed to reconsideration of Justice Roggensack’s prior refusal to disqualify herself (on the ground she had previously “handled”
Jury Instructions – Elements, Exposing Child to Harmful Materials, § 948.11(2)(a)
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez, 2011 WI 63, reversing, 2010 WI App 104; for Gonzalez: Frank J. Schiro, Kristin Anne Hodorowski; case activity
Gonzalez has shown a reasonable likelihood that the jury instructions relived the State of its burden to prove the element that he knowingly exhibited harmful material to a child.
The facts are essentially undisputed: Gonzalez watched pornography while care-taking his 3-year-old daughter,
Juror Bias – Assessment, Generally / Child Sexual Assault
State v. David D. Funk, 2011 WI 62, reversing unpublished summary disposition; for Funk: Michele Anne Tjader; case activity
Juror Bias – Assessment, Generally
A claim of juror bias relies requires proof of the two-step test articulated by State v. Wyss, 124 Wis. 2d 681, 726, 370 N.W.2d 745 (1985): “(1) that the juror incorrectly or incompletely responded to a material question on voir dire;