On Point: '10-11

on bypass petition; for Nordberg: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issue:

Whether someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4).

The court of appeals held, in State v. Rachel, 2010 WI App 60, 324 Wis. 2d 465, 782 N.W.2d 443,

court of appeals decision; for Sellhausen: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether a trial judge has a sua sponte duty to strike a prosepctive juror who is an in-law of the judge.

Whether defense counsel’s use of a peremptory strike to remove the judge’s in-law renders harmless any error in the judge’s failure to remove that juror.

See prior post for further discussion.

decision below: unpublished; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Issues (formulated by On Point):

Whether admission into evidence of electronic monitoring daily summary reports requires expert testimony to lay a foundation as to accuracy and reliability.

Whether the daily summary reports fall outside the definition of hearsay because they don’t represent assertions made by a person.

Kandutsch, while under electronic monitoring,

decision below: unpublished; for Buchanan: Tyler William Wickman; case activity

Issue (formulated by On Point):

Whether, during the course of a routine traffic stop, the police developed reasonable suspicion to believe Buchanan armed and dangerous so as to perform a “protective search” of his car.

The court relied on the following to show reasonable suspicion to believe Buchanan armed and dangerous, during an otherwise routine stop for speeding:

• “furtive movements”

decision below: unpublished; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD. Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Issue (formulated by On Point):

Whether, as a matter of statutory construction, due process and equal protection, the burden of proof on a § 980.08(4)(cg) petition for supervised release of a sexually violent release is on the State.

A technical issue, but one significant to ch. 980 practice. The issue was decided adversely in State v.

decision below: summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski;  supreme court news release

Issues (from the news release):

1. Should the constitutional right of a criminal defendant not to testify on his behalf and remain silent at trial be recognized as a fundamental right that can only be waived personally by the defendant with an on the record colloquy?
2. Should the only appropriate remedy, for failure to engage in an on-the-record colloquy regarding the right not to testify at trial,

decision below: supervisory writ, not posted on-line

Issue (from Table of Cases):

Whether a circuit court, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 120.12(18) (school district has a duty to coordinate and provide continuity of educational programming for pupils receiving education services as the result of a court order under § 938.34(7d)) and § 938.45 (court may take certain actions if the district contributed to delinquency of minor) has the authority to craft an order which would override a school district’s prior determination to expel a juvenile under § 120.13(1)(c)1.

prior post: here; background summary by court: here

Issues (from Table of Cases):

Whether a pattern jury instruction confused or mislead a jury such that the instructions violated a defendant’s due process rights.

Whether a trial court erred in its handling of a jury’s questions during deliberations.

Whether particular evidence constituted substantial facts sufficient to corroborate the defendant’s alleged statements under the corroboration rule (See State v.

Prior post: here; background summary by court: here

Issue (from Table of Cases):

Whether, at resentencing, a defendant would be entitled to credit on a new sentence for time spent confined on a vacated sentence, which was served concurrently with another non-vacated sentence, when the new sentence is imposed consecutively to all other sentences (See Wis. Stat. § 973.04).

decision below: certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; court of appeals briefs: Resp.; Reply

Issue (from Table of Cases):

Whether the rule regarding consent to search a shared dwelling in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006), which states that a warrantless search cannot be justified when a physically present resident expressly refuses consent,