On Point: B. Opinions

State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue/Holding:

¶46. We must examine the entire sentencing proceeding to evaluate the prosecutor’s remarks. Upon reviewing the State’s comments in the context of the sentencing hearing, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the State stepped over the fine line between relaying information to the circuit court on the one hand and undercutting the plea agreement on the other hand.

State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue1: The terms of the plea agreement and the relevant state’s conduct are questions of fact, reviewed deferentially; whether that conduct amounts to a material and substantial breach is a question of law, reviewed independently. ¶4. The court clarifies, in the face of prior conflicting lower court opinions,

State v. Robert S. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, on certification
For Robinson: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The question of law raised on appeal is what is the appropriate remedy when an accused is convicted on the basis of a negotiated plea agreement and the counts later are determined to be multiplicitous, violating the accused’s state and federal constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy? ….

¶3.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold

Issue/Holding: Viability of State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993) upheld, against claim by state that it should be overturned. ¶22 n. 4. State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391,

State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 2002 WI 50, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For St. George: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “Was the circuit court’s exclusion of the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness an erroneous exercise of discretion, or alternatively, a deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence, as the defendant asserted?” ¶2

Holding: The trial court’s rejection of the expert was based on his lack of extensive experience in the area;

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, reconsideration denied 2002 WI 118; on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a crime lab report is admissible under the business records exception, § 908.03(6).

Holding:

¶48. There can be little question that when state crime labs generate reports like those at issue here,

State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 2002 WI 50, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For St. George: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “Was the circuit court’s exclusion of the defendant’s proffered evidence of the child victim’s prior sexual contact with another child a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence?” ¶2.

Holding: Application of § 972.11 to deprivation of the defendant of his constitutional rights is a question of “constitutional fact”

State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 2002 WI 50, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision

For St. George: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “Was the circuit court’s exclusion of the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness an erroneous exercise of discretion, or alternatively, a deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence, as the defendant asserted?” ¶2

Holding: The trial court’s rejection of the expert was based on his lack of extensive experience in the area;

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2002 WI 34, reversing 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565

For Samuel: Robert A. Henak

Issue/Holding: Ҧ35. Under Velez, first the defendant must bring a motion to suppress, alleging facts sufficient to show that a statement was involuntary under Clappes and that the police misconduct at issue is egregious such that it produces statements that are unreliable as a matter of law.

State ex rel. Gary Tate v. Schwarz, 2002 WI 127, reversing 2001 WI App 131
For Tate: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela S. Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue/Holding: The Evans-Thompson rule — “the state may compel a probationer to answer self-incriminating questions from his probation or parole agent, or suffer the consequence of revocation for refusing to do so, only ‘if he is protected by a grant of immunity that renders the compelled testimony inadmissible against the [probationer] in a criminal prosecution’”