On Point

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury that voluntary consumption of any drug precludes a finding of “mental defect” under § 971.15, where the defendant claimed he suffered from a temporary mental defect based in part on his use of a prescription drug as directed by a doctor?

Did the court of appeals erroneously exercise its discretion in granting a new trial in the interest of justice?

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point): 

Wis. Stat. § 904.10 provides that evidence of statements that a person made in court in connection with an offer to the prosecuting attorney to plead guilty or no contest to the crime charged or any other crime is not admissible in any criminal proceedings against the person who made the offer.  

Here’s an issue in search of a published decision.  In 2011, Wisconsin amended Wis. Stat § 907.02 to require circuit courts to apply the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony. Thus far, no Wisconsin appellate court has interpreted and applied the new § 907.02, so we don’t know the standard for reviewing circuit court decisions pursuant to the statute.  The old test for the admission/exclusion of expert testimony wasn’t too complicated,

Polk County  Human Services Dep’t v. Boe H., 2013AP1719, District 3, 1/14/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This appeal turns on the court of appeals’ application of the law of the case doctrine,  so it’s necessary to recap some procedural history.

After a jury found Boe mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous under the “fifth standard”, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.e, the circuit court committed him to the DHS for 6 months.  

State v. Jesse J. Delebreau, 2014 WI App 21, petition for review granted, 5/23/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 55; case activity

You remember State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25, 332 Wis. 2d 620, 796 N.W.2d 741? That’s the one that considered whether Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009),

State v. Fontaine Washington, 2011AP2462-CR, District 1, 1/17/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Washington fled from officers trying to stop the car he was driving. (¶2). Before Washington was finally stopped and arrested, the officers in pursuit saw him throw something “shiny” out the car window; a search of the area where the object was thrown turned up a gun about 30 feet off the roadway.

State v. Robert Vincent McCoy, 2012AP2583-CR, District 1, 1/7/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

An armed robbery outside a bar was caught on the security camera of a nearby homeowner, who gave a copy of the video to the police by uploading it on YouTube and emailing it to the police. The video was used to identify McCoy and then “burned” to a DVD  and played at his trial.

State v. Edward Cotton, 2013AP452, District 1, 1/7/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

At the hearing on Cotton’s petition for discharge from his ch. 980 commitment the state’s experts testified that Cotton’s high psychopathy coupled with his sexual deviance raised his risk to reoffend. They also opined that sex offender treatment Cotton received in prison did not significantly reduce his risk because it wasn’t designed to treat offenders with high psychopathy.

State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9, petition for review granted, 5/23/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 3; case activity

In this follow-up to the recent decision in State v. Alger, 2013 WI App 148, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, the court of appeals rejects two constitutional challenges to the legislation that limits the newly-adopted Daubert standard for the admission of expert testimony to ch.

State v. Torrey L. Smith-Iwer, 2013AP1426-CR, District 1, 12/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Smith-Iwer was convicted of four misdemeanors as a repeat offender under § 939.62(1)(a) and given four consecutive two-year sentences, each consisting of one year of confinement and one year of extended supervision. He moved for postconviction relief, arguing the sentences were illegal under State v. Volk,