On Point

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. 2001). Wisconsin Stat.

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 the circuit court noted, Stephan did not offer an opinion about the cause of Keri’s abrasion,

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 failure to lay a foundation for the admission of the animation.

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.

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 the defendant. Relying on his interpretation of Miller,

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grds., 2010 WI 92
For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr.

Issue/Holding:

¶43      Sveum was convicted of aggravated stalking based on his 1996 stalking conviction. Proof of this particular aggravated stalking crime requires proof of a previous conviction for a violent crime or a stalking crime involving the same victim pursuant to Wis.

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:

¶11      The State submits that the computer-generated animation was intended as a demonstrative exhibit. The decision to admit or exclude demonstrative evidence is committed to the trial court’s discretion. [6] State v.

State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42
For Warbelton: Paul G. Lazotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: On a trial for stalking, § 940.32, where one of the elements is prior conviction for “violent crime,” the defendant may blunt prejudicial impact of proof of the prior by stipulating to the existence of the conviction for a violent crime (thus precluding proof of its details);

State v. Benjamin D. Tarrant, 2009 WI App 121
For Tarrant: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶6        Waiver. Before addressing the merits, the State argues that Tarrant’s no contest plea constitutes a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses. State v. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, ¶54, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437.

State v. Chase E. Kaczmarski, 2009 WI App 117
For Kaczmarski: Harold L. Harlowe, David M. Gorwitz

Issue/Holding:

¶10      Both the State and Kaczmarski agree that the deferred prosecution agreement is analogous to a contract and therefore we draw upon principles of contract law in determining the respective rights of the parties to the agreement. See State v. Roou, 2007 WI App 193,