On Point: A. Review Grants

Review of court of appeals summary disposition (PDF here: MINERVA LOPEZ ORDER 3 8 13); case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Did the circuit court err in concluding that it should deny Lopez’s pre-sentencing plea withdrawal motion because plea withdrawal would substantially prejudice the state?

This issue statement is based on the summary disposition issued by the court of appeals and a review of the parties’ court of appeals briefs.

Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (from the Petition for Review):

Were Robinson’s state and federal constitutional rights against double jeopardy violated when, after imposing a sentence and remanding her to start serving the sentence forthwith, the circuit court recalled the case the next day and increased her sentence, not based on an error of law or a misstatement of fact?

On review of court of appeals certification; case activity: Pinno; Seaton

Issue (from certification):

Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?

See our previous post for further discussion.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether the jury instructions on self defense as it pertained to second degree reckless homicide fairly and adequately explained the defense to the jury.

2. Whether trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence.

Petitions for review aren’t available on the court’s website, so issue-formulation is educated guesswork based on the decision of the court of appeals.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether there was sufficient proof that Mary F.-R. evidenced a “substantial probability of physical harm” to herself or others and was therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)(2).

2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because it provides for a jury of six in ch.

Review of unpublished summary disposition; case activity

Issues (composed by SCOW):

(1) Does Wisconsin recognize the “mature minor doctrine,” a common law rule providing that a minor may consent or refuse to cosent to medical treatment upon a showing of maturity, intelligence and sufficient understanding of the medical condition and treatment alternatives?

(2) Does Wisconsin recognize a mature adolescent’s due process right to refuse unwanted medical treatment?

On review of published decision; case activity

Confrontation — bases of expert opinion as “testimonial” hearsay

Issue (Composed by On Point)

When a State Crime Lab technician concludes there is a DNA match between defendant and assailant based in part on a report of a DNA profile prepared by an outside lab, is the outside lab report “testimonial” for Confrontation Clause purposes, thus requiring the outside lab technician who prepared the report to testify?

On review of certification request; case activity

Invocation of the right to counsel

Issues (Composed by On Point)

1. Does the Wisconsin Constitution provide more protection than Maryland v. Shatzer, ___U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (2010) (holding that, even if a defendant has invoked his or her right to counsel, law enforcement may give the Miranda warnings again so long as the defendant has been released from custody for at least fourteen days)?

Jamerson v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 2013 WI 7

Wisconsin supreme court decision, affirming 2012 WI App 32, 340 Wis. 2d 215, 813 N.W.2d 221

This case is not directly applicable to SPD practice, but it is a useful reminder of the multitudinous collateral consequences that may attend a criminal conviction. Here’s the gist:

¶2   The new [2009] caregiver law [relating to child care licenses] imposes a lifetime ban on licensure,

on review of certification; case activity

Issue (from Certification) 

Whether our holding in Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232, ¶¶26, 28, 267 Wis. 2d 739, 672 N.W.2d 88, that “Wisconsin Stat. § 51.35(1)(e) mandates that a patient transferred to a more restrictive environment receive a hearing within ten days of said transfer,” is contrary to the plain language of the statute.