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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
TPR – Summary Judgment on Grounds (Abandonment)
Nathan Y. v. Tarik T., 2010AP992, District IV, 10/7/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tarik T.: Philip J. Brehm The court rejects the argument that under Steven V. v. Kelley H., 2004 WI 47, ¶36, summary judgment is inappropriate when the ground alleged is abandonment. ¶7 … First, Steven V. explained that […]
TPR – Telephonic Appearance
Grant Co. DSS v. Stacy K. S., 2010AP1678, District IV, 10/7/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stacy K.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate The circuit court may take the parent’s admission telephonically at the grounds phase of a TPR; neither § 48.422(7)(a) nor § 807.13 requires physical presence. ¶16 Addressing first the requirements […]
Fleeing, § 346.04(3); Evidence – Character Trait of Victim
State v. Daniel H. Hanson, 2010 WI App 146 (recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 4; for Hanson: Chad A. Lanning; case activity Fleeing, § 346.04(3) Can you criminally “flee” the police, if what you’re actually doing is driving to the nearest police station to escape what you believe to be a beating at the hands […]
State v. Lee Anthony Batt, 2010 WI App 155
court of appeals decision (recommended for publication); for Batt: Chad A. Lanning; BiC; Resp.; Reply OWI – Implied Consent Law – § 343.305(5)(a) Testing Construing State v. Stary, 187 Wis. 2d 266, 522 N.W.2d 32 (Ct. App. 1994), the court concludes that the Implied Consent law affords the driver the right to choose testing administered by […]
Reasonable Suspicion – Illegal Parking, § 346. 53
City of Kenosha v. Elizabeth R. Tower, 2009AP1957, District 2, 10/6/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Tower: Michael F. Torphy; BiC; Resp.; Reply Because the police knew Tower was merely stopped temporarily for the purpose of dropping of a passenger – an explicit statutory exception to illegal parking – they didn’t have […]
Implied Consent Law – Non-English-Speaking Driver
State v. Javier Galvin, 2010AP863-CR, District 2, 10/6/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Galvin: John S. Schiro, Keith Llanas; BiC; Resp. Galvan, who had minimal ability to understand English, didn’t understand the implied consent warnings given to him in English. Because the arresting officer knew of Galvan’s limitation, and had indeed […]
Community Caretaker Doctrine
State v. Jason L. Sedahl, 2010AP1097-CR, District 3, 10/5/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Sedahl: William A. Schembera; BiC; Resp. The trial court erred in dismissing a pending charge on the theory that the charge (OWI) resulted from police failure to perform their community caretaker function (preventing him from driving): ¶12 … […]
Reasonable Suspicion – Traffic Stop
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cortes: Timmothy J. Lennon; BiC; Resp.; Reply State v. Rolando S. Cortes, 2010AP621-CR, Distric 3, 10/5/10 The officer had reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop: ¶7 Conley’s inference that Cortes was trying to elude or evade police was reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. […]
State v. Shantell T. Harbor, 2009AP1252-CR, Wis SCt rev granted 9/22/10
decision below: unpublished; for Harbor: Joseph E. Redding; court of appeals briefs: BiC; Resp.; Reply Issues (from Table of Pending Cases): Whether a defendant presented a new factor entitling sentence modification (See State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). Whether a defendant demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. […]
State v. Donovan M. Burris, 2009AP956-CR, Wis SCt rev granted 9/21/10
decision below: unpublished; prior On Point post; for Burris: Byron C. Lichstein Issue (from Table of Pending Cases): Was the trial court’s supplemental jury instruction that was issued in response to a question from the jury and that quoted verbatim from a Supreme Court opinion an impermissibly misleading instruction under the standards established by State v. […]
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.