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.
State v. Hezekiah Laster, Jr., 2009AP692-CR, Dist III, 1/12/10
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication)
Arrest – Probable Cause
Arrest based on probable cause where drug informant identified photo of Laster as person he just bought drugs from.
State v. Jennifer Z., 2009AP846, Dist III, 1/12/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
Delinquency – Venue
Delinquency venue is where the juvenile resides, § 938.185(1)(a), which is where the legal custodian establishes the child’s domicile; legal custodian of Jennifer Z. was Taylor Co. Human Services, therefore she resided in Taylor Co.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Eliciting Incriminating Testimony
Counsel’s eliciting incriminating testimony, without tactical reason, leading to added count was ineffective.
Counsel: Failed but Adequate Investigation; Interest-of-Justice Review: Critical Evidence (Absence of Herpes) Not Heard by Jury
State v. Jeffrey A.W., 2010 WI App 29; for Jeffrey A.W.: Hans P. Koesser
Adequacy of Counsel Investigation
Counsel’s attempt to demonstrate the absence of herpes in the defendant—an issue central to this sexual assault prosecution—was, although a failure, not the product of deficient performance.
¶12 There is no question that trial counsel’s investigation yielded the wrong information. But that does not necessarily equate to deficient performance.
State v. Tom L. Garcia, 2010 WI App 26
court of appeals decision; for Garcia: Paul M. Ruby
Defendant’s Right to Testify – After-the-Fact Evidentiary Hearing on Required Colloquy
Although a colloquy is required by State v. Weed, 2003 WI 85 before the defense rests without testimony from the defendant, failure to conduct the colloquy doesn’t automatically result in new trial but, rather, supports postconviction evidentiary hearing procedure.
¶14 The supreme court in Weed mandated a simple colloquy for courts to employ when a defendant chooses not to testify at trial.
County of Grant v. Kaleena E. Collins, 2009AP 2469-FT, Dist IV, 1/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
Vehicle Stop – Rear Plate State Name Obscured
Stop proper where rear plate bracket obscured name of state, even though “America’s Dairyland” visible at bottom of plate; pretextual nature of stop irrelevant.
Melissa S. v. Edward T. K., 2009AP2354, Dist IV, 1/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
TPR – Competency of Court, Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
Custody order in Iowa didn’t strip competency of Wisconsin court to act on TPR petition, where child now lived in Wisconsin, and matter held in abeyance until Iowa declined jurisdiction; “Wis. Stat. § 822.23 does not require a court to dismiss a custody action as soon as it discovers that another state had entered a custody order for the child when the action was commenced in this state.
State v. John D. Tischer, Sr., 2009AP992-CR, Dist IV, 1/14/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)
Vehicle Stop – Reasonable Suspicion – Anonymous Tip Insufficient
Anonymous tip “from an unknown informant calling from an unknown location” that driver in restaurant parking lot pouring out beer insufficiently reliable to support subsequent stop, where no traffic violations or erratic driving observed.
State v. Rene L. Fortun, 2009AP1172-CR, Dist IV, 1/14/10
court of appeals decision; for Fortun: Todd E. Schroeder
Forgery, § 943.38(1) – Altered Prescription (Increasing Number of Pills)
Altering the number of pills on a prescription and presenting the altered document to a pharmacist comes within the forgery statute, § 943.38(1).
State v. Dimitri Henley, 2010 WI 12
Memorandum Decision (per Roggensack, J.)
Disqualification, § 757.19(2)(e)
Justice Roggensack isn’t disqualified under § 757.19(2)(e) from participating in Henley’s pending appeal, even though as a court of appeals judge she decided the separate appeal of Henley’s jointly tried codefendant Adams.
¶23 … I conclude that disqualification/recusal is directed under Wis. Stat. § 757.19(2)(e) only when the same defendant in the action or proceeding on which an appellate judge has already participated as a judge is once again before a court on which the same judge is serving.
Seizure of Person: Some Restraint Necessary; Reasonable Suspicion: Stop of Car: No Front Plate – “Frisk” of Car
State v. Leneral Louis Williams, 2010 WI App 39; for Williams: Richard L. Zaffiro; Resp Br.; Reply Br.
Seizure – Some Restraint Necessary
¶16 The Fourth Amendment is not implicated until there has been a seizure. The Court in Terry described a seizure as “whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his [or her] freedom to walk away.” Id.
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.