On Point

Jennifer M. v. Franz Maurer, 2010 WI App 8

Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court has authority to order a represented adult ward to submit to an interview with her guardian ad litem, outside the presence of her counsel and over her attorney’s objection, where the order also requires the guardian ad litem to report the content of the interview to the circuit court,” ¶1.

Holding:

¶11 The policies underlying the no-contact rule are of sufficient importance in guardianship cases that the right to counsel guaranteed by Wis.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Oliver: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

SVP – Evidence
1. Unobjected-to testimony by a state evaluator that DHS psychologists are more “conservative” in their conclusions than other SVP experts did not “cloud” the issue and therefore did not support new trial in the interest of justice,

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Reversed, 2011 WI 12

Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct – “Context”
On trial for sexual assault of defendant’s young stepdaughter, evidence that defendant also burned her hand was not admissible to show the “context” of the alleged crime.

¶15      Here,

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for James M.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate

TPR – Voluntariness of Plea

¶24      Because Wisconsin statutory law does not permit a court to terminate parental rights upon a finding of unfitness without completing the dispositional phase, we see no rationale for requiring a court to inform a parent that a finding of unfitness results in the automatic loss of the constitutional right to parent.  

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Asley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Mental Commitment
Trial court order of inpatient treatment supported by evidence:

¶18      Dr. Berney testified that as of the date of his examination, Ashley required inpatient treatment, but there was a substantial probability she would be ready for outpatient treatment by the time of the final hearing, which was five days later.  

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication) BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Traffic Arrest
Probable cause to believe Broad drove on public roadway, hence to arrest for OWI, where car was found off the road, Broad was in driver’s seat and admitted to being driver, car “was warm and running.”

Right to Testify
Violation of rule requiring contemporaneous colloquy as to waiver of right to testify at trial doesn’t lead to automatic reversal of conviction;

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication) BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Terry Stop
Reasonable suspicion found, based on citizen informant report of pickup truck slowly going back and forth down a residential street at 3:30 in the morning and “approaching various houses”; “lawful but unusual and suspicious driving may be the basis of an officer’s reasonable suspicion.”

State v. Travis Joe Brimer, Jr., 2010 WI App 57; for Brimer: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

“The right against self-incrimination only applies at criminal proceedings or “other proceeding … where the answers might incriminate [the defendant] in future criminal proceedings.” Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 368 (1986) (citations omitted),” ¶7. Because a reconfinement hearing isn’t part of the criminal process,

State v. Dionny L. Reynolds, 2010 WI App 56; for Reynolds: Russell D. Bohach; BiC; Resp. Br.

Statement voluntary, following multiple interviews while in custody on unrelated offense:

¶45      Balancing Reynolds’ personal characteristics against the totality of the police detectives’ conduct, we note, first and foremost, that Reynolds voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making his incriminating statement. Generally speaking,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); Susan E. Alesia, Madison Appellate

Competency
Circuit court erred in not granting request for competency hearing, based on some jibberjabber about the PD and cost; plus circuit court wrong to limit competency hearing to those few cases where person “doesn’t have a clue what’s going on.”

(Snark: who bears costs when the court doesn’t have a clue what’s going on?) Trial counsel,