On Point

decision below: unpublished; for Kandutsch: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Issues (formulated by On Point): Whether admission into evidence of electronic monitoring daily summary reports requires expert testimony to lay a foundation as to accuracy and reliability. Whether the daily summary reports fall outside the definition of hearsay because they don’t represent assertions […]

decision below: unpublished; for Buchanan: Tyler William Wickman; case activity Issue (formulated by On Point): Whether, during the course of a routine traffic stop, the police developed reasonable suspicion to believe Buchanan armed and dangerous so as to perform a “protective search” of his car. The court relied on the following to show reasonable suspicion to […]

decision below: unpublished; for West: Ellen Henak, SPD. Milwaukee Appellate; case activity Issue (formulated by On Point): Whether, as a matter of statutory construction, due process and equal protection, the burden of proof on a § 980.08(4)(cg) petition for supervised release of a sexually violent release is on the State. A technical issue, but one significant […]

State v. Charles R. Black, 2009AP2036-CR, District 4, 1/13/10 court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Black: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Black BiC; State Resp.; Reply Expert Opinion – “Jensen” Testimony – Failure to Object An expert may testify that a complainant’s behavior is consistent with a sexual […]

Caselaw prior to amendments to §§ 907.01-.03 may be found: here. These sections were amended by 2011 Wis Act 2 (eff. date 2/1/11), as follows: 907.01 Opinion testimony by lay witnesses. (intro.) If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’s testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or […]

State v. Daniel W. Kohel, 2010AP1057-CR, District 2, 1/12/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kohel: Andrew Mishlove; case activity; Kohel BiC; State Resp.; Reply Prosecutorial delay, measuring at least 2 years and perhaps longer, in disclosing potentially exculpatory evidence violated Kohel’s right to speedy trial and therefore supports dismissal with prejudice of […]

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ebert: Chad A. Lanning; case activity; Ebert BiC; State Resp.; Reply Consent-Based Entry ¶7        The Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not apply when police have consent to enter a dwelling.  State v. Douglas, 123 Wis. 2d 13, 18, 365 N.W.2d 580 (1985).  The issue in this appeal is […]

State v. Craig A. Erickson, 2010AP1763-CR, District 2, 1/12/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Erickson: Kirk B. Obear; case activity; Erickson BiC; State Resp.; Reply Laboratory assistant, acting under direction of pathologist and following laboratory procedures, is qualified under § 343.305(5)(b) to draw blood. State v. Penzkofer, 184 Wis. 2d 262, 516 N.W.2d 774 […]

State v. Thomas R. Paulick, 2010AP1883, District 2, 1/12/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Paulick: Robert C. Raymond; case activity; Paulick BiC; State Resp.; Reply The officer’s conclusion of speeding may be based on a visual estimate “while looking in his rear view mirror,” ¶8, citing City of Milwaukee v. Berry, […]

State v. Henry Edward Reed, Jr., 2009AP3149-CR,  District 1, 1/11/11 court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Reed: Basil M. Loeb; case activity; Reed BiC; State Resp. Guilty Plea Colloquy – Plea Questionnaire Reed’s claim that he didn’t understand the significance of read-in offenses is defeated by their coverage in the plea […]