On Point

State v. Charles L. Wendt, 2010AP2416, District 4, 6/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wendt: Michael C. Witt; case activity

“Momentary incursion” (or, “slight deviation”) into oncoming lane provided probable cause to stop motorist for violation of § 346.05. Having properly stopped Wendt, the officer had reasonable suspicion to administer field sobriety tests, given the odor of alcohol and latter’s “glassy and bloodshot eyes”: “obvious and classic”

Donald Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, 6/23/11

The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement.

Walworth County DH&HS v. Roberta J. W., 2010AP2248, District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roberta J.W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate, case activity

By his overweening involvement in the trial process, evincing his prejudgment of the case and asking “countless questions of the witnesses” – to an extent that the GAL objected that “the judge was abusing his function and was not being fair to Roberta -,

State v. Keith A. Stich, 2010AP2849-CR, District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stich: Andrew Joseph Burgoyne; case activity

Stich’s failure to heed an officer’s instruction to stop – instead, Stich walked away and into his house and encouraged his companion Lidbloom to do likewise – established the crime of obstructing. The police were investigating an earlier incident, and “Stich’s actions, which delayed the deputies’ ability to question Lidbloom,

State v. Blair T. Davis, 2011AP320,District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Davis: Daniel J. Posanski; case activity

Arrest by campus policeman, outside his jurisdiction, was justifiable under either citizen’s arrest, or fresh pursuit, doctrines.

¶5        The fresh pursuit doctrine states that any Wisconsin peace officer may pursue and arrest a suspect “anywhere in the state” for a violation of any law or ordinance that the officer is authorized to enforce as long as the officer is in “fresh pursuit.”  Wis.

State v. Leroy M. Godard, 2010AP1731-CR, District 2, 6/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Godard: Rick B. Meier; case activity

Counsel’s failure to listen to police recordings of the interrogations of Godard’s accomplices, even if deficient, wasn’t prejudicial.

¶15      The postconviction motion hearing testimony shows that Godard’s case was not weakened without the line of questioning from the recordings.  At trial,

State v. Brian T. St. Martin, 2011 WI 44, on certification; for St. Martin: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Consent to Search – Co-Tenant – Georgia v. Randolph

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) holds that a physically present resident’s objection trumps a co-tenant’s consent to a warrantless search of a residence.

State v. Alan Adin Randall, 2011 WI App 102 (recommended for publication); for Randall: Brian Kinstler, Craig S. Powell; case activity; prior history: State v. Randall, 192 Wis. 2d 800, 532 N.W.2d 94 (1995) (“Randall I”); State v. Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct.

State v. Albert M. Virsnieks, 2010AP1967, District 2 / 1, 6/21/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); pro se; case activity

Virsnieks’ plea-based conviction for burglary supported  ch. 980 commitment.

¶35      A Wis. Stat. ch. 980 petition must allege, among other things, that a “person has been convicted of a sexually violent offense.”[5] Wis. Stat. § 980.02(2)(a)1.  A “[s]exually violent offense” is defined,

State v. Omar F. Ofarril-Valez, 2010AP3109-CR, District 1, 6/21/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ofarril-Velez: Dustin C. Haskell, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

The court marshals “nine indicia of impairment” to support its conclusion of probable cause to arrest: time (2:30 a.m.); driving 3-4 miles over posted limit; “light odor” of alcohol; admission of drinking 1 beer; glassy eyes; difficulty complying with instructions;