On Point blog, page 37 of 104
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State v. Rickey R. Denson, 2011 WI 70, affirming unpublished summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski; case activity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State v. David D. Funk, 2011 WI 62, reversing unpublished summary disposition; for Funk: Michele Anne Tjader; case activity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;
Sentence Credit, Previously Imposed Sentence, § 973.04; Double Jeopardy
State v. Charles Lamar, 2011 WI 50, affirming 2009 WI App 133; for Lamar: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Sentence Credit, Previously Imposed Sentence, § 973.04
Two concurrent sentences were initially imposed following guilty pleas to aggravated battery and misdemeanor bail jumping, both as repeater. The Agg Batt plea was withdrawn on postconviction motion, but the bail jumping wasn’t challenged.
Frisk – Auto; Plain View
State v. Deandre A. Buchanan, 2011 WI 49, affirming unpublished CIA decision; for Buchanan: Tyler William Wickman; case activity
Frisk – Auto
Frisk of Buchanan, following routine traffic stop for speeding, was supported by reasonable belief that he was armed and dangerous.
¶3 We hold that under the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trooper’s observation of Buchanan’s furtive movements and visible nervousness,
Consent to Search – Co-Tenant; Search Warrant – Factual Inaccuracies
State v. Brian T. St. Martin, 2011 WI 44, on certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity
Consent to Search – Co-Tenant – Georgia v. Randolph
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) holds that a physically present resident’s objection trumps a co-tenant’s consent to a warrantless search of a residence.
Standing – Generally; Counsel – Choice of, Disqualification – Civil
Susan Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condominium Association, Inc., 2011 WI 36, on certification; case activity
Standing – Generally
Lead opinion (3-Justice):
¶5 There is no single longstanding or uniform test to determine standing in the case law. Courts have inconsistently used a variety of terminologies as tests for standing. Therefore, as a prerequisite to answering the first question, we review the law of standing.
Sentencing – Life without Parole for Juveniles / Harsh and Excessive Review / New Factor / Improper Factor – Religious Views
State v. Omer Ninham, 2011 WI 33, affirming, 2009 WI App 64; for Ninham: Frank M. Tuerkheimer, Bryan Stevenson; amici: Byron C. Lichstein, Robert R. Henak, G. Michael Halfenger, et al.; case activity
Sentencing – Life without Parole for Juveniles – Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Sentence of life without parole imposed on juvenile (Ninham was 14 when he committed the crime) upheld,