On Point: B. Opinions

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose

Issue: Whether the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness (“John”) – unavailable at trial after refusing to testify at that stage – was admissible under the confrontation clause,

Patrick G. Schilling v. State Crime Victims Rights Board, 2005 WI 17, on certification

Issue/Holding: The first sentence of Art. I, § 9m (“dignity” provision) is a statement of purpose, articulating the importance of crime victims’ rights, but is not self-executing. ¶¶13-26.

General methodology of interpreting constitutional provision – plain meaning of words; constitutional debates; earliest legislative implementation – recited, ¶16. In the present instance,

State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification
Subpoenaed Individual: Stephen P. Hurley, Marcus J. Berghahn, Hal Harlowe

Issue/Holding:

¶15      A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that normally will not issue except in the absence of other adequate remedies. [6] As a remedy, writs of prohibition are often used in connection with John Doe proceedings.

State v. David S. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, on bypass
For Stenklyft: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶126 [T]he record of the proceedings must clearly demonstrate that the circuit court exercised its discretion and weighed the appropriate factors when the court reached its decision on sentence adjustment. An example of such balancing would be a record that showed that the circuit court considered the nature of the crime,

State v. David S. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, on bypass
For Stenklyft: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The prosecutorial veto written into the TIS sentence-adjustment provision, § 973.195, is unconstitutional:

¶83 … “[S]hall” is interpreted as directory, thereby giving a circuit court discretion to accept or reject an objection from a district attorney on a petition for sentence adjustment under Wis.

State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals
For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18 An analysis of 2001 Wis. Act 109 by the Legislative Reference Bureau clearly supports the conclusion that persons sentenced under TIS-I are able to utilize the procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.195 … .

…

¶20 As discussed previously in Trujillo,

State v. John R. Maloney, 2005 WI 74, affirming 2004 WI App 141, but nonetheless retaining jurisdiction pending resolution of other issues
For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman

Issue/Holding: Failure to move to suppress evidence based on asserted violation of SCR 20:4.2 does not support deficient performance, given that applicability of this Rule was not settled:

¶23      The split of authorities described above is important in considering whether Maloney’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the admissibility of the videotape evidence based on an alleged violation of SCR 20:4.2. 

State v. Derek Anderson, 2005 WI 54, on certification
Anderson: Neil C. McGinn, SPD, Milwaukee Trial; Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶47 We conclude that § 939.03(1)(a) is satisfied upon proof that the defendant committed an act in Wisconsin manifesting the intent to kill. Specifically, intent to kill, which is a constituent element of first-degree intentional homicide, may be said to take place——that is,

State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald

Issue/Holding: The “significant investigation” requirement of State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98 is satisfied:

¶52      Investigator Price estimated that over the course of March 13 and 14, a total of 20 law enforcement officers had become involved in the investigation of the homicide.

State v. Peter A. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, reversing unpublished decision
For Fonte: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: § 940.09 is constitutional, as against a challenge that it relieves the State of proving a causal connection between intoxication and death; reasoning in, and result of, State v. Caibaiosai, 122 Wis. 2d 587, 363 N.W.2d 574 (1985) reaffirmed, ¶38.