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.
Consent to Search
State v. Robert L. Stokes, 2009AP919-CR, District 1, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Stokes: John M. Bolger; case activity; Stokes BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Given trial court credibility findings, the resident’s consent to the police to enter and search was voluntary.
¶19 Finally, we are not convinced by Robert’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion regardless of whether Deborah’s consent was valid because police had no lawful reason to be in the Stokes’ yard and on their porch.
Repeated Sexual Assault – Sufficiency of Evidence; Effective Assistance of Counsel
State v. Darrell Lemont Otis, 2010AP589, District 1, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Otis: Bryan C. Lichstein; case activity; Otis BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Repeated Sexual Assault – Sufficiency of Evidence
Repeated sexual assault, § 948.025(1)(b), requires proof of 3 elements: 3 or more sexual assaults; within a specified period of time;
Harmless Error; Hearsay – Medical Treatment/Diagnosis
State v. Jimmie Lee Higgins, 2010AP861-CR, District 1, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Higgins: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity; Higgins BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Any error with respect to exclusion of the victim’s pretrial statement to the police in one instance, and admissibility of her statements to a nurse, would be harmless.
Self-Representation – SVP
State v. Lee Alexander Brown, 2010AP970, District 1, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Brown: Russell D. Bohach; case activity; Brown BiC; State Resp.
The court holds that Brown knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at trial on his sexually violent person petition. Although there is a question as to whether the right to counsel under the 6th amendment and Art.
Right to Present Defense – Prosecutorial Intimidation of Witness; Comment on Guilt
State v. Jevell Williams, 2010AP1266-CR, District 1, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Williams: Bradley J. Wochowicz; case activity; Williams BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Right to Present Defense – Prosecutorial Intimidation of Witness
The prosecutor didn’t violate Williams’s right to present a defense by raising the possibility that his alibi witness had potentially violated a no-contact order by contacting a State’s witness on Williams’s behalf.
Stun Belt: Necessity Irrelevant if not Visible to Jury
State v. Jason L. Miller, 2011 WI App 34; for Miller: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Miller BiC; State Resp.; Reply
If the stun belt (or other restraint) isn’t visible to the jury, the trial court need not consider its necessity before requiring that the defendant wear it during trial. “Because there is no evidence that the jury could see the stun belt,
Obstructing – Complaint, Probable Cause; Self-representation
State v. Richard A. Wusterbarth, 2010AP1306-CR, District 3, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wusterburth: Eileen A Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Wusterburth BiC; State Resp.; Reply
The complaint established probable cause for obstructing, § 946.41(1), by alleging that Wusterburth made a false report to the police that a neighbor was manufacturing drugs,
Attempted Possession of Improvised Explosive Device, § 941.31(2)(b): Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Dennis C. Strong, 2011 WI App 43; for Strong: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence that Strong possessed pails filled with methyl ethyl ketone (i.e., acetone, or paint thinner), with bare electrical wires running through the pails and attached to a wall outlets, held sufficient to establish guilt for possessing improvised explosive device, § 941.31(2)(b). The court rejects the arguments that the material was flammable rather than “explosive,”
Restitution
State v. Gary R. Sampson, 2010AP1930-CR, District 3, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sampson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Sampson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Sampson was guilty of theft for keeping a down payment to make improvements to a business without finishing the work. However, he is liable for restitution,
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 1/11
court of appeals publication orders, 1/31/11
On Point posts from this list:
2011 WI App 2 Dustardy H. v. Bethany H.
2011 WI App 3 State v. Mark D. Jensen
2011 WI App 6 State v. Miguel A. Ayala
2011 WI App 15 State v. Tracy Smiter
2011 WI App 17 State v.
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.