On Point: A. Review Grants

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed from the State’s Petition for Review)

Did the police have probable cause to arrest Dean Blatterman for operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, where police were aware Blatterman had three prior OWI convictions, and thus had a .02 PAC threshold?

Did the police have a legitimate community caretaker concern when they transported Blatterman ten miles from the site of the traffic stop to a hospital?

On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed from the State’s Petition for Review)

In granting Kucharski a new trial on the issue of mental responsiblity under the miscarriage of justice prong of § 752.35, did the court of appeals substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on issues that are within the sole province of the finder of fact, so that the appellate court’s decision conflicts with this court’s decision in State v. Sarinske, 91 Wis. 2d 14, 280 N.W.2d 725 (1979)?

Should a defendant be entitled to a new trial on the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect under the miscarriage of justice prong of § 752.35 where the court of appeals does not find any error or unfairness in the defendant’s trial, but determines there is a substantial probability of a different result on retrial only by substitution its judgment for that of the fact-finder on issues that are the province of the fact-finder alone?

On review of a per curiam unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court violate Jesse Herrmann’s due process right to an impartial judge by exhibiting objective bias in sentencing Herrmann?

On review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Was Griep’s right to confront the witnesses against him violated by allowing the supervisor of an unavailable lab analyst to testify to his opinion about the defendant’s BAC based entirely on the report prepared by the unavailable analyst?

On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Was there sufficient evidence to establish Michael H. was “dangerous” under § 51.20(1)(a)2.a. or c., based either on his “threats” of suicide or a pattern of acts or omissions showing such impaired judgment that there is a substantial probability of physical impairment or injury?

On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the inclusion in the PSI of statements Alexander made to his probation agent, and the trial court’s consideration of the statements at sentencing, violate Alexander’s right against self-incrimination?

On review of published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply to a search of a home conducted in reliance on a search warrant that was itself based on a search by a drug-sniffing dog that violated Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013)?

On review of a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court’s violation of Harrison’s right to substitution under § 971.20 deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction over the case and render the judgment void, or can the violation be deemed to be harmless error?

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is revisiting State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, 332 Wis. 2d 620, 796 N.W2d 741, a splintered decision (4 different rationales) with an impenetrable rule.  In this case, the State obtained two statements from the defendant after he had appeared at arraignment with appointed counsel.  The issue is whether the State violated his Sixth Amendment rights.

On review of published court of appeals decisions: Alger, 2013 WI App 148; Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9; case activity: Alger; Knipfer

Issues (composed by On Point)

Does the filing of a petition for discharge or supervised release under ch. 980 after the effective date of the adoption of 2011 Wisconsin Act 2 “commence” an action or proceeding such that the Daubert standard for expert witness testimony applies to the discharge or supervised release proceeding?

If the filing of a discharge or supervised release petition after the effective date of Act 2 does not commence a new proceeding, does it violate due process or equal protection to refuse to apply the Daubert standard to the proceedings on those petitions?