On Point

State v. Mario Emmanuel James, 2013AP309-CR, District 1, 3/11/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

James, charged with armed robbery, alleged trial counsel was ineffective based on various alleged omissions, including the following:

• Failing to object to evidence that the victims of the robbery identified James from a photo array based on the claim that it was a suggestive identification procedure because the police told the victims before they viewed the array that they had found the victims’

State v. Francisco Luis Canales, 2013AP1435-CR, District 1, 3/11/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Though the state violated its discovery obligation by failing to disclose multiple computer-aided dispatch (CAD) reports describing 9-1-1 calls regarding the incident, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Canales’s motion for mistrial after the discovery violation came to light.

A mistrial is appropriate only when there is a “manifest necessity,” for “the law prefers less drastic alternatives,

State v. Mitchell M. Treiber, 2013AP2684-CR, District 3, 3/11/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The inevitable discovery doctrine, which provides that “evidence obtained during a search which is tainted by some illegal act may be admissible if the tainted evidence would have been inevitably discovered by lawful means,” State v. Lopez, 207 Wis. 2d 413, 427, 559 N.W.2d 264 (Ct.

State v. Minerva Lopez, 2014 WI 11, reversing an unpublished summary disposition of the court of appeals (available here: MINERVA LOPEZ ORDER 3 8 13); case activity

Allowing the defendant to withdraw her no contest pleas would cause substantial prejudice to the state because it would mean the defendant’s trial would occur after the child victim turned 16 and would thus preclude state from presenting video statements of child under § 908.08.

State v. Nancy Jean Wall, 2013AP787-CR, District 4, 3/6/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The prosecutor’s reference during opening statement that Wall’s BAC was over the legal limit of 0.02, despite a stipulation designed to keep that threshold from being referred to during trial, was not intended to provoke a mistrial. Therefore, the circuit court’s dismissal of the charges was erroneous.

Wall,

State v. Brian C. Beahm, 2013AP1678-CR, District 4, 3/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

An 12- to 13-month delay between Beahm’s arrest and the filing of OWI charges did not violate his Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial.

Whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated depends on: the length of the delay; the reason for the delay;

State v. Michael J. Adrian, Jr., 2013AP1890-CR, District 4, 3/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Transporting Adrian from the site his vehicle was stopped to the nearest police station for the purpose of performing field sobriety tests did not convert a lawful Terry detention into an illegal custodial arrest.

A person temporarily detained under Terry may be moved “in the general vicinity of the stop without converting what would otherwise be a temporary seizure into an arrest.” State v.

Marquette County v. Randy S. Tomaw, 2013AP1510, District 4, 3/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Tomaw was going 17 miles over the speed limit at 1:20 on a Sunday morning. He did not appear to respond to the officer’s initial attempt at contact, his upper body swayed as he walked to the rear of his vehicle, and the officer detected the “strong odor” of alcohol on his breath.

Rosemond v. United States, USSC 12-895, 3/5/14, vacating and remanding United States v. Rosemond, 695 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2012); Scotusblog page (includes links to the Court’s docket, the briefs, and commentary on the case)

Resolving an issue that had split the federal circuit courts, the Supreme Court holds that in a prosecution for aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)–which prohibits the use or carrying of a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime–

State v. Daniel T. Storm, 2013AP2212, District 2, 3/5/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects Storm’s claim that the circuit court imposed a fine and costs without determining his ability to pay because Storm did not provide a complete record on appeal:

¶4        It would have been nice had Storm provided us with the transcripts of those hearings [to which the circuit court’s written decision referred] so that we could see for ourselves what happened which resulted in the stipulation.