On Point blog, page 93 of 104
Community Caretaker — Juvenile in High-crime Area
State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, if a seizure did occur when the police told a potentially vulnerable juvenile girl in a high crime area to “stay put,” it was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.
Holding: (Lead, three-vote opinion:) Given the “strong public interest in locating runaway children and juveniles,” along with the perception that “(a) juvenile [such as Kelsey],
First Amendment – Speech – Criminalized Threat
State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For Douglas D.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether purely written speech may be punished as disorderly conduct, § 947.01, even where no disturbance results.
Holding: The disorderly conduct statute, applied to speech alone, is neither overbroad nor “underbroad” (i.e., discriminating on the basis of content),
Consent — Authority — Driver’s Consent to Search Passenger’s Property
State v. Jennifer K. Matejka, 2001 WI 5, 621 N.W.2d 891, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals.
For Matejka: James B. Connell
Issue: “(W)hether, under the consent exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, a driver’s consent to a police officer’s search of a vehicle extends to a passenger’s jacket left in the vehicle at the time of the search.”
Holding:
¶35 Here,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Nonconstitutional Right — Unauthorized Practice of Law
State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64, reversing 2001 WI App 145, 246 Wis. 2d 533, 629 N.W.2d 31
For Noble: Thomas H. Boyd
Issue/Holding: Suppression of evidence is required only where it has been obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights or of a statute specifically providing for suppression as a remedy. ¶14.
Issue: Whether, assuming that a detective’s examining defendant at a John Doe proceeding amounted to violation of the unauthorized practice of law statute,
Intrastate Detainer Act, § 971.11 — Violation of Right to Speedy Disposition — Discretion to Dismiss with Prejudice as Remedy
State v. Christopher Lee Davis, 2001 WI 136, reversing 2001 WI App 61
For Davis: Jane Krueger Smith
Issue1: Whether a circuit has discretion to dismiss a case with prejudice under § 971.11(7), for failure of the state to bring it on for trial within the 120-day period set by § 971.11(2).
Holding:
¶14. We agree with the court of appeals that ‘the legislature has left the matter up to the courts to exercise its [sic] discretion to dismiss with prejudice in a proper case lest the statute have no meaning at all.’ This interpretation of Wis.
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis — Use of Complaint
State v. Tyren E. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For Black: Michael S. Holzman
Issue: Whether the trial court properly found a factual basis for the guilty plea, by relying solely on the criminal complaint, where extraneous information put one of the elements in doubt.
Holding:
¶14. In essence, Black urges us to overturn this rule and find that a circuit court cannot find a factual basis for a plea in the complaint alone.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Parole Eligibility, When Set by Court
State v. Jeremy J. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, 237 Wis. 2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477, affirming as modified State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 594 N.W.2d 388
For Byrge: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court, before accepting a plea of guilty or no contest [to a crime punishable by life imprisonment], must inform a defendant that it possesses the authority to fix the parole eligibility date.”
“Jensen” Testimony, “Maday” Remedy – Right to Examine Complainant’s Psychological Condition
State v. Joseph F. Rizzo, 2002 WI 20, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 57, 241 Wis. 2d 241, 624 N.W.2d 854
For Rizzo: Franklyn M. Gimbel
Issue1: Whether testimony by a state’s expert amounted to “Jensen” testimony, i.e., expert opinion that the sexual assault complainant’s behavior was consistent with that of sexual assault victims in general.
Holding:
¶21.
Defenses – “Statutory Double Jeopardy” – Drug Offenses – § 961.45
State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 626 N.W.2d 195, on certification
For Hansen: Pamela Pepper
Issue: “¶8 … ‘Does Wis. Stat. § 961.45 bar prosecution for the state crime of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, where a defendant previously has been convicted, based on the same conduct, for the federal crime of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute? Stated differently,
SVP – Trial – Necessity of Objection to Insufficient Proof
State v. Dennis R. Thiel (I), 2000 WI 67, 235 Wis. 2d 823, 612 N.W.2d 94, on certification from court of appeals
For Thiel: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the ch. 980 respondent waived his objection to insufficient proof by absence of objection.
Holding: “(T)he subject of a commitment petition under ch. 980 is not required to voice an objection to the allegations contained in the petition….