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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
TPR — continuing CHIPS; sufficiency of the evidence that parent will likely not meet the required conditions for return of the child
Kenosha County DHS v. Debra S.A., 2013AP318, District 2, 7/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity In a fact-dependent decision that applies the well-established sufficiency standard (¶10), the court concludes the evidence at the fact-finding hearing permitted the trier of fact to conclude that Debra had not complied with requirements that she […]
Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury. Closing argument — state’s reference to defendant’s failure to call witnesses. Prior inconsistent statement — witness’s lack of recollection
State v. Ramon G. Gonzalez, 2012AP1818-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted, 1/19/14, affirmed, 2014 WI 124; case activity Self-incrimination — requiring defendant to show physical characteristic to jury Where inmate victim of battery by another prisoner identified one of his assailants as an inmate “with platinum […]
TPR: Waiver of jury and stipulation to elements doesn’t survive subsequent appeal, reversal, and remand
Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J.W., 2013 WI App 102; consolidated case activity: 2012AP2387; 2012AP2388 The County petitioned to terminate Roberta’s parental rights in 2007 on the grounds her children were in continuing need of protection and services. After a jury trial and dispositional hearing her rights were terminated, but on appeal the termination order was […]
Joinder — multiple incidents of armed robbery, two of which also involved homicide. Identification — suggestiveness of photo array
State v. Deontaye Terrel Lusk, 2012AP587-CR, 2012AP588-CR, 2012AP589-CR, & 2012AP590-CR, District 1, 7/16/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2012AP587-CR; 2012AP588-CR; 2012AP589-CR; 2012AP590-CR Joinder Lusk was charged in four cases with crimes arising from five armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery that occurred in April, May, June, and July, 2009. In two of the robberies the […]
Search and seizure — validity of search warrant: staleness of probable cause; overbreadth
State v. Diane M. Millard, 2012AP2646-CR, District 2, 7/17/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity A search warrant was supported by probable cause because the two events cited in the warrant request–a controlled heroin buy in January 2011 and a garbage search in July 2011 revealing “a small, circle shaped screen […]
Enhancer time may be added to extended supervision portion of bifurcated sentence for misdemeanor enhanced under § 939.62
State v. Shawn J. Robinson, 2012AP2498-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity Robinson was convicted of two misdemeanors which were enhanced under the repeater statute, § 939.62(1)(a). He was sentenced on each count to bifurcated sentences consisting of one year of confinement and one year of extended supervision. (¶¶2-4). […]
Postconviction motion under § 974.06 challenging enhanced misdemeanor sentence is barred because issue was not raised in previous postconviction motion
State v. Zackory J. Kerr, 2013AP273-CR, District 1, 7/23/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity Kerr was sentenced to one year of confinement and one of extended supervision, consecutive to any other sentence. Shortly after sentencing he unsuccessfully challenged the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (¶¶2-4). A few years later he moved […]
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Ethics rule governing prosecutor’s duty to disclose information to defense is not more demanding than the constitutional duty to disclose
Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Sharon A. Riek, 2103 WI 81 (per curiam), affirming referee’s dismissal of disciplinary complaint; case activity The supreme court holds that a prosecutor’s duty to disclose information to the defense under SCR 20:3.8(f)(1) does not impose a broader duty to disclose than the constitutional duty imposed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 […]
Exposing genitals to a child, § 948.10, is limited to situations involving face-to-face contact and therefore doesn’t cover “sexting”
State v. Zachary P. Stuckey, 2013 WI App 98; case activty The court of appeals concludes that the prohibition in § 948.10 against exposing genitals to a child is a “variable obscenity” statute, and to avoid unconstitutional application it must be read to require proof the defendant knew he was exposing himself to someone under the age […]
Wisconsin Supreme Court fails to clarify application of the Confrontation Clause to expert testimony
State v. Richard Lavon Deadwiller, 2013 WI 75, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity Witucki, a state crime lab analyst, testified that Richard Deadwiller’s DNA matched a DNA profile derived from semen found on vaginal and cervical swabs collected from two sexual assault victims. (¶¶2, 10). But Witucki […]
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.