Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
State v. Jessica A. Nellessen, 2012AP150-CR, petition for review granted 10/15/13
Review of published court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Was Nellessen entitled to an in camera review under Wis. Stat.§ 905.10(3)(b) to determine whether an informant may be able to give testimony necessary to a fair determination of the issue of guilt or innocence, when the defendant claims she was unaware there were controlled substances in the trunk of her car,
Grant County v. Daniel A. Vogt, 2012AP1812, petition for review granted 10/15/13
Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Was Vogt seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when a police officer pulled up behind Vogt’s parked car, approached the car, rapped on the driver’s window, and directed Vogt to roll the window down?
Petitions for review aren’t available on the court’s website, so the issue statement is based on the brief filed in,
Court of appeals rejects defense challenge to shaken baby syndrome; finds old wine in new container
State v. Michael L. Cramer, 2012AP2547; District 1; October 15, 2013 (not recommended for publication); case activity
A jury convicted Cramer of 1st-degree reckless homicide for the death of his 10-week old son. Both the Milwaukee County medical examiner and the attending physician testified for the State at trial. In their opinions, the baby died from blunt force injuries, including trauma to the head and brain. The defendant’s expert testified that the baby’s injuries were caused by “resuscitated Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.”
Bruce Abramski v. United States, USSC No. 12-1493, cert. granted 10/15/13
1. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a fact “material to the lawfulness of the sale” of the firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)?
2. Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a piece of information “required … to be kept” by a federally licensed firearm dealer under § 924(a)(I)(A).
Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to present expert testimony that would have supported defendant’s testimony
State v. Deborah A. Nixon, 2013AP822-CR, District 2, 10/16/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Nixon was at the home of a friend who called the police because Nixon was being disorderly and wouldn’t leave; Nixon did leave for a while, but when she returned her friend called police again, who came and ended up arresting her for OWI. (¶2). At trial she testified that she drank as many as three beers after driving back to her friend’s house,
Court of appeals affirms sentence aimed at holding defendant for trial in different county; accuses counsel of lacking candor
State v. Rodney Vincent McToy, 2013AP832-CR, District 1, 10/15/13, (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
McToy pled guilty to two charges of misdemeanor bail jumping stemming from a domestic dispute with Ms. H. The parties briefed a straightforward Gallion issue: Did the Milwaukee County Circuit Court erroneously exercise its discretion when it failed to provide a “rational and explainable basis” for the sentence it imposed—200 days in jail for one count and 2 years probation for the other?
Court of appeals reverses conviction for hit and run involving death due to trial counsel’s ineffective assistance
State v. Marker Alan Sperber, 2013AP358-CR, District 3, 10/15/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity
This appeal turns on Wis JI-Criminal 2670, which explains the 5 elements of the crime the Sperber was charged with–a hit and run causing death to the victim. The 2nd element requires that the defendant know that his vehicle was involved in an accident involving a person. The problem here was that Sperber was driving in the dark on wet roads flanked by blackened snowbanks.
State’s handling of photo array evidence did not violate due process or discovery statute
State v. Raynard Rashawn Jackson, 2012AP1854, 2012AP1861, and 2012AP1862, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP1854; 2012AP1861; 2012AP1862
Jackson was alleged to have been involved in a shooting, and as part of their investigation the police constructed a photo array to show to three eyewitnesses, all of whom identified Jackson. (¶¶2, 10-11). The array consisted of photos of Jackson and five other persons.
Defendant was competent to proceed despite “clouded judgment” that affected his ability to decide whether to accept plea agreement
State v. Maurice C. Hall, 2013AP209-CR, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
A competency evaluation found Hall competent to proceed, though his mental health history caused Deborah Collins, the examiner, to “urge court officers to remain sensitive in the event of any significant changes in his overall mental status as such a factor may signal decline in his competency and warrant his reexamination.”
OWI — probable cause to arrest despite lack of field sobriety tests
State v. Lewis Allen Stokes, 2012AP2621-CR, District 1, 10/15/13; court of appeals opinion (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Probable cause to arrest for OWI was established based on: police observations of Stokes speeding and weaving in and out of traffic without signaling at 11:00 p.m.; Stokes’s slurred speech and the strong odor of alcohol on his breath; and Stokes’s argumentative and combative attitude toward the police. (¶¶4-5, 10).
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.