On Point: 1997-98 Term

State v. Ronald A. Hansford, 219 Wis.2d 226, 580 N.W.2d 171 (1998), on certification
For Hansford: Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a bail jumping conviction may be sustained where based solely on commission of a new crime while out on bond, and the new crime is reversed on appeal

Holding: In such a situation, the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.

In re Paternity of Roberta Jo W.: Roberta Jo W. v. Leroy W., 218 Wis.2d 225, 578 N.W.2d 185 (1998), on certification.

Holding:

The second issue is whether the circuit court erred in terminating court-appointed counsel upon the filing of a notice of appeal. We hold that after a notice of appeal was filed, the case was within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals,

State v. Vance Ferron, 219 Wis.2d 481, 579 N.W.2d 654 (1998), affirming, as modified, 214 Wis. 2d 268, 570 N.W.2d 883 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Ferron: Jane Krueger Smith

Issue: Whether a prospective juror’s equivocations during voir dire required that he be struck for cause.

Holding: The trial court erred in refusing to strike for cause a potential juror who acknowledged only that he “probably” could set aside his opinion that a truly innocent defendant would testify.

State v. Lance Terry Konrath, 218 Wis.2d 290, 577 N.W.2d 601 (1998), affirming unpub. decision
For Konrath: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding: Forfeiture statute § 346.65(6) authorizes a civil, remedial in rem proceeding, and is not facially unconstitutional; because the statute is civil, double jeopardy doesn’t apply; the proceeding provides sufficient notice to satisfy due process (with caution that immediate seizure appropriate in certain circumstances).

State ex rel. Phillip I. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), affirming State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz, 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 “the State breached the Alford plea agreement and thereby violated his right to due process when it revoked his probation solely on his continued assertion of innocence.”

State ex rel. Phillip I. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), affirming State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz 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: “(W)hether the circuit court’s failure to inform Warren at the time of his Alford plea that he would be required to admit his guilt during a sex offender treatment program rendered that plea unknowing and involuntary in violation of his right to due process,”

State v. Reuven Seibert, 220 Wis. 2d 308, 582 N.W.2d 745 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Seibert: Jane Krueger Smith

Issue/Holding: “(W)hether the proceeding is one under the initial ch. 980 commitment or a later petition for supervised release under § 980.08, there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that the State prove the person is treatable.”

State v. Jason Phillips, 209 Wis.2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573 (1997), reversing 209 Wis. 2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573
For Phillips: Arthur B. Nathan

Issue/Holding: Entry into defendant’s bedroom was preceded by a concededly illegal entry into defendant’s living area, in basement of house. The court holds that any taint was dissipated by the time consent was given, though “only a few minutes [had] elapsed.”

State v. Jason Phillips, 209 Wis.2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573 (1997), reversing State v. Phillips, 209 Wis. 2d 559, 563 N.W.2d 573
For Phillips: Arthur B. Nathan

Holding: Consent to search is question of constitutional (as opposed to historical) fact, and therefore subject to independent review on appeal. Defendant consented to warrantless search of bedroom: agents went to house to investigate drug transaction;