On Point

State v. Corey Kleser, 2009 WI App 43, PFR filed 4/9/09
For Kleser: Robin E. Dorman, SPD Milwaukee Trial; Debra Flynn-Parrino, Devon M. Lee, SPD, Milwaukee Juvenile

Issue/Holding:

¶46      Wisconsin Stat. § 970.032(2) makes no provision for the admission of hearsay at a reverse waiver hearing. Where a statute does not specifically authorize hearsay, it is generally prohibited, see Wis. Stat.

State v. Michael L. Popke, 2009 WI 37, reversing unpublished opinion
For Popke: John Miller Carroll, Aaron W. Schenk

Issue / Holding:

¶26      In the case at hand, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Similar to the specific and articulable facts observed by the officer in Post, the officer in this case made the following observations over the course of approximately one block at 1:30 a.m.: The defendant was driving with three-quarters of the vehicle left of the center of the road;

 “Qualified Expert Witnesses” Requirement

Issue: Whether the social worker expertise “beyond the normal” is required to qualify as an expert within the meaning of the ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f).

Holding:

¶37 Because in D.S.P. the court affirmed an exercise of the circuit court’s discretion, we do not read D.S.P. to hold that 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) requires that social workers must have qualifications comparable to those of the two testifying there.

Monroe County DHS v. Luis R., 2009 WI App 109

Issue: Whether ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f), which requires likely serious emotional or physical damage to the child from continued parental custody, applies to placement outside the parental home when the TPR proceeding is initiated.
Holding:

¶18 The ICWA does not preempt the Wisconsin Children’s Code, and Wisconsin statutes can be harmonized with the federal law by applying any state law safeguards beyond those mandated by the ICWA.

State v. Colin G. Schloegel, 2009 WI App 85
For Schloegel: Sarvan Singh

Issue/Holding: High school student Schloegel was not in custody for Miranda purposes, notwithstanding that he was frisked by police officer, compelled under school policy to consent to search of his car and asked, prior to formal arrest, incriminatory questions; analogy to State v. Dale Gruen, 218 Wis.

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: Defendant’s request to call parents so they could call attorney for him was an insufficiently unequivocal assertion of his right to counsel:

¶36      We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that even if we assume that the defendant made requests to call his parents so that they could call an attorney for him,

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: Where Miranda rights were properly given at the outset of the “first segment” of interrogation, re-administration of rights wasn’t necessary for “second segment,” several hours later, ¶¶24-28.

State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09
For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding:

¶29      Berggren also argues that his statements were induced by promises of probation and treatment. This amounts to an argument that his statements were not voluntarily given. He contends that the detective questioning him conveyed: “the belief that simple possession of child pornography photos would result in a probation disposition”;

Werner v. Hendry, 2009 WI App 103, PFR filed 7/17/09

Issue/Holding:

¶11      As a final matter, we observe that the appellant’s appendix fails to include the trial court’s reasoning. It is essential that the appendix include the record items truly relevant and essential to understanding the issues raised, particularly the trial court’s oral ruling. State v. Bons, 2007 WI App 124,

State v. Dione Wendell Haywood, 2009 WI App 178
For Haywood: Robert E. Haney

Issue/Holding: ¶1 n. 1:

Haywood’s notice of appeal mistakenly asserts that he also appeals “from … the postconviction motion dated December 2, 2008.”  First, Haywood’s appeal is from the circuit court’s order denying his motion, not from the motion.  Second, the circuit court’s order is dated December 1,