On Point blog, page 40 of 104
Warrantless Entry – Consent – Attenuation of Taint
State v. Robert L. Artic, Sr., 2010 WI 83, affirming 2009 WI App 12; for Artic: Keith A. Findley, James D. Cooley; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Notwithstanding an unlawful, forcible police entry into his residence, Artic voluntarily consented to the subsequent search of the house, which was also sufficiently attenuated from the illegal entry to purge the taint of the illegal entry.
Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances
State v. Terion Lamar Robinson, 2010 WI 80, affirming 2009 WI App 97; for Robinson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶2 The dispositive issue in this case is whether the police officers’ warrantless entry into Robinson’s apartment and subsequent search was supported by probable cause and justified by exigent circumstances when the officers corroborated three of the four details relayed by an anonymous informant,
Community Caretaker – Warrantless Entry
State v. Juiquin A. Pinkard, 2010 WI 81, affirming unpublished decision; for Pinkard: Richard L. Zaffiro; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The community caretaker function, which allows the police “to protect persons and property,” supports warrantless entry of a home. Exercising this function, the police justifiably entered Pinkard’s home in response to an anonymous phone report that “two individuals …
Sentence Credit – Concurrent Sentence, Foreign Jurisdiction
State v. Patrick C. Carter, 2010 WI 77, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 255; for Carter: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Carter is entitled to sentence credit for time spent in custody in Illinois following his arrest on an outstanding Wisconsin warrant along with an Illinois charge, given that the resultant sentences were concurrent.
Five different opinions, 238 paragraphs spread out over 116 pages (pdf file),
Binding Authority – Overruled Court of Appeals Decision
Blum v. 1st Auto & Casualty Insurance Company, 2010 WI 78
¶42 We next address whether a court of appeals decision retains any precedential value when it is overruled by this court. We hold that when the supreme court overrules a court of appeals decision, the court of appeals decision no longer possesses any precedential value, unless this court expressly states otherwise.
A less obscure problem than you might think.
Sentencing – Review – Reliance on Race or Gender
State v. Landray M. Harris, 2010 WI 79, reversing unpublished decision; for Harris: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply; Amicus
¶3 We agree with the State and reject the reasonable observer test created by the court of appeals. Sentencing decisions are afforded a presumption of reasonability consistent with Wisconsin’s strong public policy against interference with a circuit court’s discretion.
Interlocutory-Appeal Petition – Reviewability
Estate of Robert C. Parker v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 2010 WI 71
The supreme court is empowered to review denial of a petition for leave to appeal non-final order by the court of appeals.
¶45 The language of our case law is strong. We have stated that “[w]here the court of appeals denies permission to appeal from an order conceded by the parties to be nonfinal,
Rape-Shield – Prior Untruthful Allegation
State v. Jim H. Ringer, 2010 WI 69, reversing unpublished opinion; for Ringer: Thomas O. Mulligan; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶3 We conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it granted Ringer’s motion in limine, allowing him to introduce at trial evidence that the child complainant made prior allegedly untruthful allegations of sexual assault against her biological father.
Guilty Plea – Knowledge of Maximum Penalty
State v. Travis Vondell Cross, 2010 WI 70, on bypass; for Cross: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Cross Supp.; AG Supp.
¶4 We hold that where a defendant is told that he faces a maximum possible sentence that is higher, but not substantially higher, than that authorized by law,
Counsel – Substitution – Deaf Defendant
State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2010 WI 72, affirming unpublished opinion; for Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶43 The issues presented are first, whether Jones is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the circuit court wrongly denied his request for substitution of counsel, and second, whether he is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that such a denial violates rights guaranteed by the Wisconsin Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.