On Point blog, page 52 of 104
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right: § 968.135, Subpoena Procedure for Production of Documents – Suppressibility of Statements Made When Confronted with Improperly Subpoenaed Documents
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell
Issue: Whether statements made when confronted with documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.
Holding:
¶81 The defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements in the present case is substantially similar in nature to a motion to quash the subpoena.
Securities Fraud, § 551.41(2) – Elements – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding:
¶29 The State was required to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict LaCount of securities fraud. First, the prosecution had to establish that LaCount sold Wills a security, here, an investment contract. Wis. Stat. § 551.41. Second, the prosecution had to prove that LaCount made an “untrue statement of a material fact or [omitted] to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,
§ 901.03, Plain Error – Generally
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶21 Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) (2003-04) recognizes the plain error doctrine. [3] The plain error doctrine allows appellate courts to review errors that were otherwise waived by a party’s failure to object. State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78,
Plain Error, § 901.03(4) – Prosecutor’s Closing Argument as Violating Confrontation
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶39 Jorgensen’s right to confrontation was also violated during the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor took what the jury had improperly heard during the trial a step further. She “testified” that Jorgensen was a “chronic alcoholic” who did not acknowledge his problem,
Plea Bargains — Validity: Enforceability of “Internally Inconsistent” Terms
State v. Sou W. Her, 2008 WI 39, dismissing as improvidently granted, review of unpublished decision
For Her: Donald J. Chewning
Issue/Holding:
¶2 This case involves Her’s agreement to plead guilty in exchange for an aggregate 15-year sentence recommendation from the State (10-years initial confinement with 5-years extended supervision). The record clearly indicates that the district attorney intended Her’s 15-year sentence to match what was believed to be the sentence of Her’s co-defendant,
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) – Recognizance Bond as Documentary Proof of Defendant’s Connection to Place Where Drugs Founds – Criminal History Generally Inadmissible
State v. Ronell E. Harris, 2008 WI 15, affirming unpublished decisionFor Harris: Ralph J. Sczygelskis
Issue/Holding: A document, identified to the jury as “recognizance of bond in a criminal case … by the defendant,” found in the same room as a controlled substance and meant to show his connection to the drug, was inadmissible:
¶82 Criminal History Generally Inadmissible. Ordinarily evidence of a defendant’s criminal history is not admissible because when such evidence is admitted,
Expert Testimony – Opinion as to Issue of Domestic Law
State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously admitted an attorney’s expert opinion testimony that LaCount had engaged in a securities transaction.
Holding:
¶19 As noted previously, appellate courts use the deferential erroneous exercise of discretion standard when reviewing a circuit court’s decision to admit expert testimony.
§ 940.21, Mayhem – Elements – Generally – Includes “Forehead”
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:
¶70 To constitute mayhem, the State must show that the defendant had (1) the specific intent to disable or disfigure; (2) by cutting or mutilating the tongue, eye, ear, nose, lip, limb, or other bodily member;
Defenses – Statute of Limitations, § 939.74 – Version Applicable to Since-Repealed, Ch. 944 Offense
State v. Bruce Duncan MacArthur, 2008 WI 72, on Certification
For MacArthur: Alex Flynn
Amicus: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding: Alleged violations, between 1965 and 1972, of since-repealed ch. 944 sexual assault statutes come within the statute of limitations provision extant during that time frame.
There is, of course, a whole lot more to it than that, at least in terms of getting to that point,
Wisconsin Constitution – Construction – Construction – “New Federalism” – Art. I, § 11 Generally Follows Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison
Issue/Holding:
¶20 Historically, we have interpreted Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution in accord with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶15, 274 Wis. 2d 540,