On Point blog, page 55 of 104
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Understanding Nature of Charge – Intersection with Factual Basis
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Failure to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea triggers Bangert procedure, ¶¶56-59, citing State v. Monika Lackershire, 2007 WI 74. In this instance (because of a last-minute inclusion of a ptac theory the complaint didn’t assert any accomplice- or vicarious-liability facts;
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Understanding Nature of Charge – Colloquy, Generally
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The defendant’s understanding of the charge must be detailed, in anon-perfunctory manner, on the record of the guilty plea:
¶52 The circuit court did not establish Howell’s understanding of the information it relayed to Howell by personally questioning him. Rather than asking Howell to summarize his understanding,
Excited Utterance – Report of Robbery/Battery
State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶54 We agree with the State’s position that Price’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. In talking to Officer Langendorf, Price was describing a startling event——his encounter with Mayo, during which he claimed that he was robbed and battered.
Guilty Pleas – Procedure – Read-In, Generally
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: ¶27 n. 7:
This court explained the procedure for read-in charges in Austin v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 727, 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971). When charges are read in during sentencing, the defendant admits to having committed the underlying crimes, but does not plead guilty to the charges,
Guilty Pleas – Procedure – Read-In, Existence of
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: In order to trigger read-in procedure there must be a sufficient showing of an agreement to read in the offense at issue:
¶28 Nowhere in the transcript of the plea hearing, the transcript of the sentencing hearing, the transcript of the adjourned sentencing hearing,
§ 910.02: Original of Surveillance Tape Required But if Destroyed without Bad Faith, Testimony of Contents Allowed, § 910.04(1) – “Unplayable” Tape Tantamount to Destroyed
State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision
For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski
Issue/Holding: A surveillance tape that became unplayable was “destroyed” within the meaning of § 910.04(1), and its contents could be testified to by pre-destruction viewers:
¶68 We are satisfied that where a tape is damaged and unplayable, the proponent of the evidence makes reasonable efforts to restore the tape to playability,
Delivery of Controlled Substance – Sufficiency of Evidence (and Corroboration of Confession Rule)
State v. Edward Bannister, 2007 WI 86, 302 Wis. 2d 158, 734 N.W.2d 892, reversing 2006 WI App 136
Issue/Holding: Bannister’s confession to giving morphine to someone who died from an overdose of the substance was sufficiently corroborated to support his his conviction:
¶ 22 We first address whether the State satisfied the corroboration rule during the course of Bannister’s trial. The corroboration rule is a common-law standard.
Binding Authority – Consideration of Foreign Authority When Wisconsin Law Is Unclear
State v. Steven P. Muckerheide, 2007 WI 5, affirming unpublished opinion
For Muckerheide: Mark S. Rosen
Issue/Holding:
¶38 We agree with the State’s assertion that cases from other jurisdictions are not binding on Wisconsin courts. State ex rel. E.R. v. Flynn, 88 Wis. 2d 37, 46, 276 N.W.2d 313 (Ct. App. 1979). We recognize that such case law is oftentimes helpful,
TPR — Prior TPR as Grounds, Based on Default Judgment
Oneida Co. DSS v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30, affirming unpublished decision
Issue: Whether partial summary judgment against Nicole was properly granted under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10) (prior involuntary TPR within 3 years) when the prior termination order was based on her default for failing to personally appear at the fact-finding hearing.
Holding:
¶27 We agree with the court of appeals that to require more evidence than a prior involuntary termination order to satisfy Wis.
TPR — Partial Summary Judgment (as to Fact-Finding Hearing) – Basis and Proof – Prior TPR, Grounds for
Oneida Co. DSS v. Nicole W., 2007 WI 30, affirming unpublished decision
Issue: Whether partial summary judgment against Nicole was properly granted under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10) (prior involuntary TPR within 3 years) when the prior termination order did not state the explicit § 48.415 ground relied on.
Holding:
¶2 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 48.415(10)(b) does not require proof of which § 48.415 ground was relied upon for a prior termination of parental rights because the phrase,