On Point blog, page 28 of 30
State v. Edwin Clarence West, No. 2009AP1579, review granted 1/11/11
decision below: unpublished; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD.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.
State v. Rickey R. Denson, 2009AP694-CR, review granted 12/8/10
decision below: summary order; for Denson: Donna Odrzywolski; supreme court news release
Issues (from the news release):
- 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?
- Should the only appropriate remedy, for failure to engage in an on-the-record colloquy regarding the right not to testify at trial,
Madison Metro. School Dist. v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2009AP2845-W, review granted 10/27/10
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.
State v. Esteban M. Gonzalez, 2010 WI App 104, review granted 10/27/10
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.
State v. Charles Lamar, 2009 WI App 133, review granted 10/27/10
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).
State v. Brian T. St. Martin, No. 2009AP1209-CR, review granted 10/27/10
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,
State v. Shantell T. Harbor, 2009AP1252-CR, Wis SCt rev granted 9/22/10
decision below: unpublished; for Harbor: Joseph E. Redding; court of appeals briefs: BiC; Resp.; Reply
Issues (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a defendant presented a new factor entitling sentence modification (See State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989).
Whether a defendant demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v.
State v. Donovan M. Burris, 2009AP956-CR, Wis SCt rev granted 9/21/10
decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Burris: Byron C. Lichstein
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Was the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction that was issued in response to a question from the jury and that quoted verbatim from a Supreme Court opinion an impermissibly misleading instruction under the standards established by State v. Lohmeier, 205 Wis. 2d 183,
State v. Olu A. Rhodes, 2009AP25, Wis SCt rev Granted 9/24/10
decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Rhodes: John J. Grau
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to confront a witness in cross-examination was infringed, and, if so, whether the infringement was harmless error.
Homicide case, tried on State’s theory Rhodes had motive to kill victim for beating Rhodes’ sister; court of appeals reversed because trial judge cut off cross-examination that Rhodes did not react violently in response to prior harm inflicted by victim on sister.
State v. David D. Funk, 2008AP2765-CR, Wis SCt Rev Granted 9/24/10
decision below: unpublished summary disposition; for Funk: Michele Anne Tjader
Issue (from Table of Pending Cases):
Whether a juror was subjectively and/or objectively biased under the test set forth in State v. Delgado, 223 Wis. 2d 270, 588 N.W.2d 1 (1999).
Briefs, appellate decision, petition for review: none is posted, so you can’t readily tell what the case is about. CCAP indicates that this is a sexual assault case and that the judge granted new trial because a juror failed to reveal on voir dire she’d been a sexual assault victim herself.