On Point

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court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Williams: Bradley J. Wochowicz; case activity; Williams BiC; State Resp.; Reply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.

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,

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wusterburth: Eileen A Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Wusterburth BiC; State Resp.; Reply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,

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,”

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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sampson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Sampson BiC; State Resp.; Reply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, 1/31/11

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.

Join Mr. Badger in Welcoming Daubert to the Badger State

2011 Wis Act 2 (Senate Bill 1, Special Session Jan. 2011) brings Wisconsin into line with FRE 702 (“Daubert” rule). The Act was signed into law 1/27, but won’t take effect until published (which will be no later than 2/10). A potential sea change in expert witness admissibility is in the offing; see, e.g., State v.

State v. Joshua J. Hysell, 2010AP1817-CR, District 4, 1/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Hysell: John Smerlinski; case activity; Hysell BiC; State Resp.

Phoned tip by driver who gave his name and described the subject vehicle as “all over the road” held sufficiently reliable to support reasonable suspicion for stop.

Because the informant gave his name,

State v. Tushar S. Achha, 2009AP1977-CR, District 2, 1/26/11

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity; State Resp.

Ineffective Assistance Claim – Necessity of Motion

Failure to preserve a challenge to trial counsel’s performance via postconviction motion waives the issue on appeal, ¶19.

Entrapment – Child Sex Crime with Computer

Challenge to sufficiency of evidence to negate entrapment defense rejected,

State ex rel. Christopher L. Shelton v. Smith, 2010AP719, District 2, 1/26/11 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity; State Resp.

Shelton was sentenced on two pre-TIS counts: an active (indeterminate) prison sentence on one count and a consecutive term of probation on the other. He served out the first sentence, with the prison indisputably holding him 143 days past his release date.