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.
OWI – Blood Test, § 343.305(5)(a), Generally; Request for Blood Test
City of Sun Prairie v. Michael H. Smith, 2010AP2607, District 4, 5/26/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Smith: Tracey A. Wood; case activity
¶9 Wisconsin Stat. § 343.305(5)(a) imposes the following obligations on law enforcement: “(1) to provide a primary test at no charge to the suspect; (2) to use reasonable diligence in offering and providing a second alternate test of its choice at no charge to the suspect;
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 5/11
court of appeals publication orders, 5/26/11
On Point posts from this list:
2011 WI App 61 State v. Carl Cornelius Gilbert, Jr. / State v. Price T. Hunt
2011 WI App 63 State v. Darron D. Jackson
2011 WI App 64 State v. Michael D. Below
2011 WI App 66 State v. Herbert O. Richard
2011 WI App 68 Adam Martine v.
Sex Offender Registration: Out-of-State Convictions – “Misdemeanor Treatment,” § 301.45(6)(a)2
State v. Yancy D. Freland, 2011 WI App 80 (recommended for publication); for Freland: Michael D. Zell; case activity
Conviction for an out-of-state sex offense comparable to a misdemeanor in Wisconsin will be treated as a misdemeanor for sex offender registration purposes, § 301.45(6).
¶12 Wisconsin Stat. § 301.45(1d)(am)1. specifically defines has been “[f]ound to have committed a sex offense by another jurisdiction” to include a person who has been convicted “for a violation of a law of another state that is comparable to a sex offense.”[7] Taken as a whole,
Statutes: Retroactive Application
Rock Tenn Company v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, 2011 WI App 93 (recommended for publication); case activity
A worker’s compensation provision authorizing payment “for any future treatment” enacted after a work-related injury was incurred is remedial in nature and therefore can “be retroactively applied to award prospective treatment expenses.”
¶13 We reject Rock Tenn’s argument and conclude that LIRC reasonably held that Wis.
Forfeiture of Issue, Generally
Kevin S. Dalka v. American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2010AP1428, District 2, 5/24/11
court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); case activity
¶5 Dalka forfeited his right to appellate review of the order compelling him to accept the settlement offer. … It is a fundamental principle of appellate review that issues must be preserved in the circuit court. State v. Huebner, 2000 WI 59,
OWI-1st (Civil) – Service of Citation by Mail
County of Milwaukee v. James R. Matel, 2010AP1950, District 1, 5/24/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Matel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity
Personal jurisdiction may be conferred on an OWI-1st defendant by mailing the uniform traffic citation, coupled with filing of the citation with the trial court. Personal service isn’t required by § 345.11(5). State ex rel. Prentice v. Milwaukee Cnty.,
Newly Discovered Evidence; In Camera Inspection, Psychological Treatment Records; Evidence – Restriction on Expert Testimony
State v. Crystal P. Keith, 2010AP1667-CR, District 1, 5/24/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Keith: John A. Pray; case activity
On Keith’s conviction for reckless homicide in beating death of foster son, statements of her biological daughter (such as, “Why does mama have to go to jail for what my daddy did”) didn’t satisfy the test for newly discovered evidence. Keith’s confession to the police “was so detailed”
Guest Post: Forbush and the Riddle of a Fragmented Court
On Point is very pleased to publish this guest post by Attorney Michael B. Brennan, currently practicing with Gass Weber Mullins LLC, and formerly a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. Mr. Brennan offers his thoughts on the fractured decision of the supreme court in State v. Forbush, 2011 WI 25. On Point invites readers to submit comments to this post, in the box below.
As Dean Kearney pointed out in an interesting speech he gave to the Western District of Wisconsin bar association,
Prison Litigation Reform Act – Prison Overcrowding Oversight
Brown v. Plata, USSC No. 09-1233, 5/23/11
Remedial injunction, issued by a federal court pursuant to the PLRA, ordering California to reduce its prison population on account of deficiencies in medical care caused by overcrowding, upheld.
Lengthy, 5-4 opinion (91 pp. pdf file) on something (“conditions of confinement”) outside the boundaries of SPD representation: why should you be interested? For one thing, as On Point readership surveys have demonstrated time and again over the years,
Sentencing – Life without Parole for Juveniles / Harsh and Excessive Review / New Factor / Improper Factor – Religious Views
State v. Omer Ninham, 2011 WI 33, affirming, 2009 WI App 64; for Ninham: Frank M. Tuerkheimer, Bryan Stevenson; amici: Byron C. Lichstein, Robert R. Henak, G. Michael Halfenger, et al.; case activity
Sentencing – Life without Parole for Juveniles – Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Sentence of life without parole imposed on juvenile (Ninham was 14 when he committed the crime) upheld,
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.