On Point

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 with burnt [THC] residue on it” (¶2)–were not too far apart in time or too distinct in nature:

¶9        Regarding the staleness challenge,

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). He later challenged the sentences under State v.

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 for sentence modification based on  State v. Gerondale,

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 (1963).

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 of 18. Because the statute does not explicitly include that element,

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 did not derive the DNA profile from the semen.

State v. Martin P. O’Brien,  State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97.

As briefly noted in a previous post, the Court of Appeals has upheld Wis. Stat. § 970.038, which makes hearsay admissible at preliminary hearings and allows bindover based solely on hearsay. On Point is pleased to present this guest post about the decision by Attorney Marcus Berghahn,

 State v. Tramell Starks,  2013 WI 69, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, case activity. Majority opinion by Justice Gableman, with a dissent by Justice Bradley and joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Crooks

On Point is pleased to present this guest post by Attorney Rob Henak, an expert on Wis. Stat. § 974.06 postconviction motions and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

State v. Martin P. O’Brien, State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97; consolidated court of appeals decision; case activity: Martin O’Brien; Kathleen O’Brien; Charles Butts.

¶1        The newly enacted Wis. Stat. § 970.038 (2011-12) makes hearsay evidence admissible at a criminal defendant’s preliminary examination and permits the probable cause determination and bindover decision at a preliminary examination to be based “in whole or in part” on hearsay evidence.

State v. Andrew M. Edler, 2013 WI 73, on certification of the court of appeals; majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010), allows police to reinitiate interrogation of a defendant who invoked his right to counsel if the defendant has been released from custody for at least 14 days. The Wisconsin Supreme Court now adopts the Shatzer rule,