On Point

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),

 court of appeals decision; for Lesik: Anthony Cotton

Overbreadth challenge to 948.02, sexual assault of a child
Sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, § 948.02, isn’t unconstitutionally overbroad, against a theory that it criminalizes acts undertaken for “proper medical purpose.” Although the statute is silent with respect to medical conduct, potential overbreadth may be cured through judicial construction and the court therefore “conclude(s) here that ‘sexual intercourse’ as used in the sexual assault of a child statute does not include ‘bona fide medical,

court of appeals decision, pro se

Detainer, definition, nationwide arrest warrant

Issue/Holding: Faxing to the defendant’s prison an arrest warrant and complaint, followed by verbal confirmation of the validity of same, satisfied the § 976.05 definition of “detainer,” notwithstanding the issuing authority’s express disavowal to the prison of intent to lodge a detainer.

 ¶11   We fail to see how the foregoing could possibly not demonstrate “notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence,

court of appeals decision; for Phillips: Michael J. Backes; case activity

Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances 

¶8        There are four exigent circumstances that may justify a warrantless search: “(1) an arrest made in ‘hot pursuit,’ (2) a threat to safety of a suspect or others, (3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and (4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee.” State v.

Sentence modification based on new factor; Earned Release Program and Challenge Incarceration Program

State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2008AP3119-CR, Dist II, 11/11/09

Pro se

 Issue/Holding:

¶7        Sentence modification involves a two-step process. State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). First, a defendant must show the existence of a new factor thought to justify the motion to modify sentence.

Consecutive sentences following partial plea withdrawal and reconviction

Click here for court of appeals decision, petition for review granted 10/27/10

Defense counsel: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: After sentencing on 3 separate counts, the trial court granted Lamar’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to 2 of the counts. He continued to serve the sentence on the unchallenged count. Upon subsequent reconviction on the 2 counts,