On Point: 1997-98 Term

State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below.
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes

Issue/Holding: Applying the test of State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 647-48, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990), the court finds evidence of prior sexual assaults necessary “to rebut the logical and weighty inference that the victim gained sexual knowledge because the defendant committed the acts charged,” 

State v. Daniel Anderson, 219 Wis.2d 739, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998), reversing State v. Anderson, 214 Wis. 2d 126, 570 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Anderson: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether violating different conditions of a single bond supports multiple bail jumping counts.

Holding: Anderson, released on an otherwise unrelated case, was ordered as a condition of bail not to drink or have contact with the victim.

State ex rel. Phillip I. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), affirming 211 Wis. 2d 708, 566 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1997) / State v. Phillip I. Warren, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), on certification
For Warren: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue: Whether Warren was entitled to appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings.

Holding (¶66):

¶66 Warren’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Wis.

State v. Shonna Hobson, 218 Wis.2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), on certification
For Hobson: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, LAIP, UW Law School

Holding: Wisconsin recognizes a common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest (i.e., w/o made w/o probable cause); but having recognized that privilege, the court simultaneously abrogates it (albeit prospectively only, because of ex post facto concerns). The holding is limited to “unlawful interference with the person”

State v. Prokopios G. Vassos, 218 Wis.2d 330, 579 N.W.2d 35 (1998), on certification
For Vassos: Edmund C. Carns

Holding: Successive prosecution for misdemeanor battery (§ 940.19(1)), following acquittal of felony battery (§ 940.19(3)) arising from same incident, wasn’t barred by double jeopardy. Successive prosecutions are barred under § 939.71 when the subsequent charge is the “same” offense under the “elements-only” test. That test isn’t met here,

State v. Matthew C. Janssen, 219 Wis.2d 362, 580 N.W.2d 260 (1998), affirming 213 Wis. 2d 471, 570 N.W.2d 746 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Janssen: Eugene A. Bartman, Brian G. Figy, SPD, Appleton Trial

Issue: Whether the flag desecration statute is constitutional.

Holding: The flag desecration statute, sec. 946.05, violates first amendment overbreadth principles, and can’t be saved by severing the unconstitutional portions.

Malvern Sullivan v. Waukesha County, 218 Wis.2d 458, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998), on certification
For Sullivan: William A. Denny

Holding: A DOT training pamphlet, explaining physical and mental impairment as the level of alcohol concentration increases, is held admissible under the sec. 908.03(8) (public records and reports) exception to the hearsay rule. The court stresses that the pamphlet’s data “are factual and were made pursuant to the department’s duty to administer and enforce the laws….”

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether the defense engaged in attacks on the complainant’s character for truthfulness so as to open the door to opinion testimony that she was truthful.

Holding: § 906.08 supports rehabilitation of a witness “only in limited situations,”

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether the state was properly allowed to admit into evidence, under the rule of completeness, certain oral “challenged statements in their entirety, to show consistency on significant factual issues,”

State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether an offer of proof must be in question-and-answer form.

Holding:

¶15 The court in Milenkovich did not say, and we do not say now, that every offer of proof should be accompanied by a question and answer format. There are cases in which the evidentiary problem posed is easily resolved by statements of counsel.