On Point: B. Opinions

State v. Robert A. Mendoza, 227 Wis.2d 838, 596 N.W.2d 736 (1999), reversing State v. Mendoza 220 Wis.2d 803, 584 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Mendoza: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Striking jurors (at state’s request) merely because they have criminal records is “an error of law,” ¶24. The court, however, goes on to review whether each such juror should have been struck for cause.

State v. James E. Erickson, 227 Wis.2d 758, 596 N.W.2d 749 (1999), on certification
For Erickson: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Though a juror gave a seemingly hedged answer (“I think so”) to whether she’d be fair and impartial, the trial court’s refusal to strike for cause is upheld given appellate deference to trial-level determination of no subjective bias. ¶¶37-44.

State v. Edron D. Broomfield, 223 Wis.2d 465, 589 N.W.2d 225 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Broomfield: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Broomfield was denied fair trial because juror overheard, prior to trial, prejudicial extraneous information relating to Broomfield’s past misconduct.

Holding: Exposure to extrinsic information implicates the rule against verdict-impeachment, R. 906.06(2). The party must first establish by competent testimony three things: extraneous (as opposed to merely deliberative) information;

State v. Judith L. Kiernan, 227 Wis.2d 736, 596 N.W.2d 760 (1999), affirming State v. Kiernan, 221 Wis.2d 126, 584 N.W.2d 203 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kiernan: Chad A. Lanning, Dennis M. Melowski, Barry S. Cohen, S.C.

Issue: Whether prospective jurors who had been part of a jury that two days earlier returned a verdict of guilty in a case involving the same defense attorney,

State v. Edron D. Broomfield, 223 Wis.2d 465, 589 N.W.2d 225 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Broomfield: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: One prospective juror heard, before trial, other prospective jurors describe Broomfield as a “gangster” who beat up kids and was involved in “drive-bys.” The juror was chosen for the petit jury; he didn’t convey this information to the others, nor was it brought up during deliberations —

State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Gray: Helen M. Mullison

Issue/Holding: Gray was originally convicted of three counts. On postconviction motion, the trial court vacated and dismissed with prejudice one count for lack of proof, and ordered a new trial on a second count. The third count conviction, for which Gray had received probation, remained viable. However,

State v. Yolanda M. Spears, 227 Wis.2d 495, 596 N.W.2d 375 (1999), affirming State v. Spears, 220 Wis.2d 720, 585 N.W.2d 161 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Spears: Richard D. Martin. SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Spears killed the “victim” (Young) after he assaulted her and took her purse. She entered an Alford plea to a homicide charge. At sentencing, a dispute arose as to whether Young actually used force in taking her purse (no dispute,

State v. Dennis J. Reitter, 227 Wis.2d 213, 595 N.W.2d 646 (1999), on certification
For Reitter: Michael C. Witt, Monogue & Witt, S.C.

¶3 … where a defendant expresses no confusion about his or her understanding of the statute, a defendant constructively refuses to take a breathalyzer test when he or she repeatedly requests to speak with an attorney in lieu of submitting to the test. We also hold that because the implied consent law creates statutory privileges,

State v. Timothy M. Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201, 589 N.W.2d 387, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (1999), reversing, 218 Wis.2d 508, 582 N.W.2d 37 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Secrist: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue/Holding:

The issue presented to the court is whether the odor of a controlled substance may provide probable cause to arrest,

County of Jefferson v. Renz, 231 Wis.2d 293, 603 N.W.2d 541 (1999), reversing Jefferson Co. v. Renz, 222 Wis. 2d 424, 588 N.W.2d 267 (Ct. App. 1988)
For Renz: Stephen E. Mays.

Issue: Whether an officer is required to have probable cause to arrest before asking a suspect to submit to a preliminary breath test.

Holding: The “overall scheme” allows an officer to use a PBT to determine whether to arrest a suspect,