On Point blog, page 2 of 7
Confrontation – Certified Bank (“Business”) Records – Nontestimonial
State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208
For Doss: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether the authenticating affidavit of a bank record was “testimonial” within the Confrontation Clause.
Holding:
¶45 The parties do not dispute that the circuit court correctly described Crawford and Manuel as identifying business records as nontestimonial,
OWI – Compliance with § 343.395(4)
Waukesha County v. Eric D. Smith, 2008 WI 23, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Kirk B. Obear
Issue/Holding: By reading the required statutory information verbatim, the officer fully complied with § 343.305(4); he did not err by failing to inform the driver that he might incur penalties different from those in Wisconsin relative to the state that issued his license nor by telling the driver that if he refused to take the chemical test he would get a hearing within 10 days.
Enhancers — § 939.632, School Zone — Constitutionality
State v. Leonard J. Quintana, 2008 WI 33, affirming 2007 WI App 29
For Quintana: James B. Connell, Robyn J. DeVos, William R. Kerner
Issue/Holding:
¶81 We conclude that the school zone penalty enhancer is not unconstitutional as applied to Quintana. The legislature has sought to increase the penalty for those who commit violent crimes within 1,000 feet of “school premises.”
Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) — “Oral Communications” — Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Embedded in Definition
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision
For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether tape-recorded statements were “oral communication” as defined in Wis. Stat. § 968.27(12).
Holding:
¶16 The legislative history of Title III indicates that Congress intended the definition of “oral communication” in Title III, which reads nearly identically to the definition contained in the Electronic Surveillance Control Law,
§ 940.25(1)(a), Injury by Intoxicated Use — No Duty to Clarify Meaning of “Materially Impaired” Element Upon Jury Request
State v. Jonathan J. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92, reversing 2007 WI App 240
For Hubbard: Steven W. Zaleski
Issue: Whether, upon jury request for clarification of “materially impaired” under the instructions for injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, § 940.25(1)(a), the trial court properly responded that the should “give all words not otherwise defined in the jury instructions their ordinary meaning.”
Holding:
¶57 The circuit court had discretion to determine the necessity for,
§§ 779.02(5), 943.20(1)(b), Theft by Contractor – Elements – Claims Against Money in Trust Fund Must Be Paid Proportionately
State v. Angela A. Keyes / Matthew E. Keyes, 2008 WI 54, affirming in part and reversing in part, 2007 WI App 163
For both Keyes: Michael J. Devanie
Issue/Holding1:
¶21 The Keyes were charged with theft by contractor under Wis. Stat. § 779.02(5), part of Wisconsin’s construction lien law. … The statute prohibits the use of the money in the trust fund for any purpose other than paying claims until such time as the claims have been paid in full.
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — “Protective Sweep” Doctrine: Search of Canister
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 174
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶35 Accepting for the moment the State’s position that articulable facts exist to demonstrate that the officer had reasonable suspicion that other persons may be lurking in the defendant’s bedroom who would pose a danger to the officers and that a protective search of the bedroom was therefore justified,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right, Generally: Suppression Need not Be Expressly Provided
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell
Issue/Holding:
¶62 …[E]vidence obtained in violation of a statute (or not in accordance with the statute) may be suppressed under the statute to achieve the objectives of the statute, even though the statute does not expressly provide for the suppression or exclusion of the evidence.
Plain Error, § 901.03(4) – Confrontation-Based Errors: Statements by Prosecutor and Judge in Transcript Read to Jury
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: The present convictions stemmed from Jorgensen showing up for an otherwise unrelated hearing intoxicated; without objection, the prosecutor obtained admission of that hearing’s transcript, which the trial court read to the jury: is Jorgensen entitled to relief on the ground of violation of right to confrontation,
Privileges – Honesty Testing, § 905.065(1): Voice Stress Analysis Admissibility
State v. Keith A. Davis, 2008 WI 71, on Certification
For Davis: Chris A. Gramstrup
Issue/Holding:
¶20 Principles applicable to polygraph testing are equally applicable to voice stress analysis. See Wis. Stat. § 905.065(1); 7 Daniel D. Blinka,Wisconsin Evidence § 5065.1 (2d ed. 2001) (concluding that there is little reason to treat the forms of honesty testing mentioned in § 905.065 differently,