On Point

State v. Edwin Clarence West, 2011 WI 83, affirming unpublished opinion; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity [Companion case: State v. Nordberg, 2011 WI 84 (same result, controlled by West).]

Someone under ch. 980 commitment as a sexually violent person bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the criteria for granting supervised release under § 980.08(4)(cg),

court of appeals publication orders, 7/26/11

On Point posts from this list:

2011 WI App 100 Harlan Richards v. Alphonso Graham / Mark Heise

2011 WI App 102 State v. Alan Adin Randall

2011 WI App 104 State v. Deundra R. Lathan

2011 WI App 106 State v. Rodney a. Larson

2011 WI App 113 State v.

State v. Juan I. C., 2010AP3114, District 4, 7/21/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Juan I.C.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Credibility determination made by trial judge supported delinquency adjudication for theft of iPod that Juan borrowed but failed to return.

¶11      On the disputed issue of whether Juan repeatedly assured Max and JeVaughnte that he would either return the iPod or pay for it,

On Point is very pleased to present this Guest Post discussion of State v. Funk and State v. Denson, by the Honorable Richard J. Sankovitz, Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Feel free to submit comments in the box at the end of the Post.

Trial judges monitor the flurry of end-of-term Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions for new rules of decision and new procedures to be followed in our courts. 

D’Ann K. v. Benjamin J. G., 2010AP1655, District 4, 7/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Benjamin J.G.: Gina Frances Bosben; case activity

With failure to assume parental responsibility as the ground for termination, Benjamin G. “argues that the court did not properly apply the totality of the circumstances test established in Tammy W-G. because it failed to consider Benjamin’s testimony that D’Ann [the guardian] failed to return his phone calls.”

State v. Kevin J. Burch, 2011AP666-CR, District 4, 7/21/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Burch: Christopher W. Dyer; case activity

Reasonable suspicion of impaired driving supported the stop:

¶4        The officer was operating a squad car in West Salem late one weekday night when, at 12:44 a.m., the officer observed a truck that drew his attention.  The truck drew his attention because it was traveling “at an extremely low rate of speed,

State v. Michael D. Walters, 2010AP3156-CR, District 2, 7/20/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Walters: Thomas E. Hayes; case activity

Tip provided by citizen informant’s 911 call reporting drug use in car traveling on highway was sufficiently reliable to support stop, given that the informant provided her name, phone number, description of her vehicle, her proximate location and direction of travel, and remained on the line with updates:

¶23      According to Williams,

State v. Cathy Ann Currie, 2011AP322-CR, District 3, 7/19/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Currie: Jon Stanek; case activity

¶7        Lear testified he stopped Currie because he observed “a very large air freshener” hanging from her rearview mirror.  The court determined that any object hanging from a rearview mirror would obstruct a driver’s clear view through the front of the windshield.  The court also found Lear’s testimony about his observations credible.  

State v. David J. Balliette, 2011 WI 79, reversing unpublished decision; for Balliette: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Balliette’s pro se § 974.06 motion, asserting ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel for failing to raise ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, was insufficiently pleaded to require an evidentiary hearing.

Unless you’re an appellate specialist or a masochist –

State v. Gregg B. Kandutsch, 2011 WI 78, affirming unpublished decision; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Computer-Generated Report (Electronic Monitoring Device) – Foundation

Expert testimony isn’t necessary to lay a foundation for admissibility for a computer-generated EMD report:

¶28  Closing down a trial is not to be taken lightly, which is why the requirement of expert testimony is an extraordinary one.