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.
Plea-Withdrawal – Post-Sentencing – Bangert Hearing – State Met Burden of Proof
State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, affirming 2008 WI App 89 For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Notwithstanding “irregularities” with respect to the burden of proof, the hearing on Hoppe’s Bangert challenge established that his plea was knowing and voluntary, given “the circuit court’s findings … that the circuit court […]
Remedial Contempt – Commitment Order Based on Ex Parte Motion of (Non-attorney) Child Support Case Specialist
Clay Teasdale v. Marinette County Child Support Agency, 2009 WI App 152 Issue/Holding: Case specialist’s request to judge via affidavit and proposed order for remedial-contempt commitment was in fact if not form a “motion” and “was improper on numerous grounds”: it violated the §802.05(1) requirement that aside from pro se litigation motions must be signed by […]
Contempt – Remedial – Monetary Damages Unavailable for Past Contempt
Milton J. Christensen, et al. v. Sullivan, et al., 2009 WI 87, reversing 2008 WI App 18 For Christensen: Peter M. Koneazny, Patrick O. Patterson Issue: Whether remedial contempt supports monetary sanction for past acts (here: intentional violations of jail-overcrowding consent decree) where the sanctionable conduct has terminated. Holding: Remedial sanction, including monetary award, is limited to “continuing” contempt of court, […]
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09(2)(am)1 – Elements – Expectation of Privacy: Consensually Nude in Another’s Presence
State v. Mark T. Jahnke, 2009 WI App 4 For Jahnke: Harold L. Harlowe; Michael J. Herbert Issue/Holding: Secretly videotaping another without consent, though that person knowingly exposes herself nude to the video taper, supports criminal liability: ¶6 Jahnke contends that the facts do not support the third element, the expectation of privacy element. He reasons […]
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09(2)(am)1 – Elements, Generally
State v. Mark T. Jahnke, 2009 WI App 4 For Jahnke: Harold L. Harlowe; Michael J. Herbert Issue/Holding: ¶5 Jahnke entered a plea to the recording crime defined in Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(am)1. That crime has four elements: (1) the defendant recorded a person in the nude;(2) the recording is without the nude person’s knowledge and […]
Plain Error, § 901.03 – Generally
State v. James D. Lammers, 2009 WI App 136, PFR filed 9/16/09 For Lammers: Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue/Holding: ¶12 “Plain error” means a clear or obvious error, one that likely deprived the defendant of a basic constitutional right. State v. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, ¶25, 250 Wis. 2d 95, 640 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. […]
Plain Error, § 901.03(4) – “Haseltine / Jensen” Issue
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, PFR filed 3/6/09 For Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel Issue/Holding: Unpreserved challenge to sexual assault nurse examiner’s testimony (that abrasions were consistent with forcible intercourse and that no complainant had ever provided her with an inaccurate history) didn’t rise to plain error: ¶12 As […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – Foundational Requirements of Computer-Generated Animation: Probative Value / Authentication
State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78 For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly Issue/Holding: Foundational requirement of probative value applies to computer-generated animation used as demonstrative exhibit to recreate crime scene: ¶17 Turning to probative value, we examine the State’s […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Guilt: Flight
State v. Pablo G. Quiroz, 2009 WI App 120 For Quiroz: Glen B. Kulkoski Issue/Holding: ¶18 Law and Discussion: It is well established that evidence of flight has probative value as to guilt. See State v. Knighten, 212 Wis. 2d 833, 838-39, 569 N.W.2d 770 (Ct. App. 1997). Analytically, flight is an admission by conduct. […]
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Flight, “Independent Reason” for, as Ground for Inadmissibility
State v. Pablo G. Quiroz, 2009 WI App 120 For Quiroz: Glen B. Kulkoski Issue/Holding: ¶21 Quiroz claims that under Miller, 231 Wis. 2d at 574, there is an automatic exception to the trial court’s discretionary ability to admit flight evidence whenever a defendant has an independent reason for flight that, if admitted, would unduly prejudice […]
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.