On Point: B. Opinions

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

Issue: Whether Williams satisfied the unavailability requirement necessary to admit a declarant’s against-interest hearsay statement exculpating the defendant, § 908.045(4).

Holding: Unavailability is determined by § 908.04(1)(e), and requires a “good-faith effort” and due diligence” in attempting to secure the declarant’s presence, ¶62.

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

Issue:/Holding: The exclusion of hearsay evidence proffered by the defense is tested under the “two-part framework” of State v. St. George, 2002 WI 50, ¶51, or “whether the proffered evidence was ‘essential to’ the defense, and whether without the proffered evidence, the defendant had ‘no reasonable means of defending his case.’”

State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9
For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan

Issue/Holding:

¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed in issue by the trial evidence,

State v. Ervin Burris, 2004 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 262, 258 Wis. 2d. 454, 654 N.W.2d 866For Burris: Joseph L. SommersIssue: Whether a condition of supervised release, that Burris “avoid all conduct … that is not in the best interest of the public’s welfare or your rehabilitation” provided adequate notice that obtaining a prescription for Viagra would subject him to revocation.

Holding:

¶53.

State ex rel Thomas Hass v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 2001 WI 128

Issue/Holding:

¶10. The issue presented in this case is whether this court should exercise its constitutional superintending and administrative authority to direct the court of appeals to accept all petitions for interlocutory appeal where the circuit court has denied a claim that the state court action is barred by a final federal court judgment on issue and claim preclusion grounds.

State of Wisconsin ex rel. Eugene Nichols v. Litscher, 2001 WI 119
For Nichols: Jeffrey O. Davis, Daniel J. LaFave

Issue: Whether a pro se prisoner’s petition for review may be accepted for filing in the supreme court, even though received after the filing deadline, where it was delivered to prison authorities for mailing before the deadline.

Holding:

¶11 We decline to interpret the term ‘file’

State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Lo: Robert R. Henak
Amicus Briefs: Joseph N. Ehmann, Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD; Meredith J. Ross, Walter J. Dickey, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Retroactivity on collateral attack of a  “new” rule– one imposing a new obligation on the state and not dictated by prior precedent – must satisfy the test of Teague v.

State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 627 N.W.2d 195, on certification
For Hansen: Pamela Pepper

Issue: Whether a prior decisional pronouncement should be treated as precedential when it is contradicted elsewhere in the decision.

Holding: “Because of the internal inconsistency [in the prior decision], no judicial precedent was established in the first place,” ¶33.

County of Dunn v. Goldie H., 2001 WI 102, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Goldie H.: John E. Joyce

Issue: Whether a ch. 55 subject has a right to a hearing before the circuit court orders continuation of protective placement; and whether the circuit court must make findings of fact to support such an order.

Holding:

¶6. We hold that a person is entitled to a hearing on the record before his or her protective placement is continued,

State v. Michael S. Piddington, 2001 WI 24, 241 Wis. 2d 754, 623 N.W.2d 528, affirming State v. Piddington, 2000 WI App 44, 233 Wis.2d 257, 607 N.W.2d 303
For Piddington: Michelle Ann Tjader

Issue: Whether BAC results were suppressible because the profoundly deaf defendant could not have heard the implied-consent law recitation of rights.

Holding:

¶1 … We hold that § 343.305(4) requires the arresting officer under the circumstances facing him or her at the time of the arrest,