On Point

court of appeals decision, review granted 3/16/10; for Forbush: Craig A. Mastantuono, Rebecca M. Coffee

Post-Charge Assertion of Right to Counsel during Interrogation
The mere fact that an attorney represents a defendant formally charged with a crime doesn’t bar the police from questioning the defendant; State v. Todd Dagnall, 2000 WI 82 (“Dagnall was not required to invoke the right to counsel in this case because he had been formally charged with a crime and counsel had been retained to represent him on that charge,” ¶4),

court of appeals decision; for Conaway: Philip J. Brehm; for Griffin: Michael S. Murphy

Reasonable Suspicion for Traffic Stop, Excessive Window Tint, Generally

¶3    The window tint regulation at issue here is easily summarized. Rear window tinting is permitted only if the window allows at least 35% of light to pass through, except that the limitation does not apply to tinting done during the original manufacture of a vehicle. 

court of appeals decision; for Haywood: Robert E. Haney

Battery to Peace Officer, § 940.20(2), Elements
It is no defense to battery-to-officer that the officer refused to leave the premises when the resident withdrew consent to enter, because acting “lawfully” is not an element of the offense: “a law-enforcement officer need not be acting ‘lawfully’ for what he or she does to be done in the officer’s ‘official capacity.’

court of appeals decision; for Genevieve M.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Notice of Appeal Contents: Failure to Identify Appealable Document; Notice of Intent as Substitute 
¶2 n. 2:

The failure of the notice of appeal to correctly identify the final appealable document is not fatal to appellate jurisdiction. See Carrington v. St. Paul Fire &

court of appeals decision; for Brown: Paul Bonneson; for SPD: Colleen D. Ball, Milwaukee Appellate

No-Merit Report – Counsel Appointed by Circuit Court Rather Than SPD
Issue/Holding:

¶7        The statutes referenced in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32(1)(a), relate to the appointment of counsel by the state public defender. Thus, pursuant to Rule 809.32(1)(a), an attorney appointed by the state public defender may file a no-merit report using the statutory scheme set out in Rule 809.32.

court of appeals decision, for McPike: Nicholas E. Fairweather

Self-Incrimination – Coercion – Threat of Job Loss (Police Officer)
Statement by police officer’s superior that she was “administratively compelling” him to submit to PBT wasn’t an express threat of termination, therefore State v. Vanessa Brockdorf, 2006 WI 76, controls and his ensuing statements weren’t involuntary.

Why publish the decision, given that Brockdorf says it all?

court of appeals decision, for Patterson: David R. Karpe

Multiplicity – First-Degree Reckless Homicide by Delivery of Controlled Substance, § 940.02(2)(a) and Contributing to Delinquency Resulting in Death of Child, § 948.40(4)(a): Not Multiplicitous
Based largely on State v. Jimmie Davison, 2003 WI 89 (multiple convictions for battery permissible so long as multiple batteries have been charged), the court holds that § 939.66(2) permits conviction for both §§ 940.02(2)(a) and 948.04(4)(a),

court of appeals decision; for Freer: Suzanne L. Hagopian

Intimidation of Crime Victim, § 940.44(2), Intimidation Occurring after Complaint Filed
Intimidation of a crime victim, § 940.44(2), isn’t restricted to conduct occurring before the victim reports the crime to the police but, rather, covers conduct after the complaint has been filed:

¶24 In light of the LRB analysis, we conclude that the legislature intended the victim intimidation statute to prohibit any act of intimidation that seeks to prevent or dissuade a crime victim from assisting in the prosecution.

court of appeals decision; for Kaminski:Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

SVP: Misconduct Evidence, § 904.04(2), Reliance on by Expert 
SVP expert may rely on the respondent’s unproven prior misconduct in deriving his or her opinion. The § 904.04(2) “preliminary relevance” requirement, State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 59-61, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999); State v. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d 107,

Michelle Williams v. Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, 2010 WI App 14

Issue/Holding:

¶13      The circuit court reversed the Housing Authority’s denial of rent assistance because it concluded that, under Gehin v. Wisconsin Group Insurance Board,2005 WI 16, 278 Wis. 2d 111, 692 N.W.2d 572, the Housing Authority could not base its decision solely on uncorroborated hearsay evidence (the officer’s written notes recalling the witness’s statement of what Williams said),