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.
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Jury Exposure to Proof of Element of Prior Conviction for “Violent Crime” on Stalking Trial
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 […]
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Computer-Generated Animation – “Surprise” Use
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 […]
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Jury Exposure to Proof of Element of Prior Conviction for “Violent Crime” on Stalking Trial
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 […]
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule – Generally, Authority to Ignore
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 […]
Deferred Prosecution Agreement – Standard of Review
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. […]
Deferred Prosecution Agreement – Resumption of Prosecution after Agreement Has Expired
State v. Chase E. Kaczmarski, 2009 WI App 117 For Kaczmarski: Harold L. Harlowe, David M. Gorwitz Issue: Whether commission of an offense during the period of the deferred prosecution agreement permitted resumption of the prosecution after that period expired, under the wording of the agreement. Holding: ¶13 We conclude that the deferred prosecution agreement […]
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Charge “Dismissed Outright”: Ambiguous as to Whether State Can Argue Facts Underlying Charge
State v. Richard L. Wesley, 2009 WI App 118, PFR filed 8/4/09 For Wesley: Alvin Ugent Issue/Holding: A plea agreement under which the State dismissed one count “outright” and “(b)oth sides are free to argue” was ambiguous as to whether to State could argue the facts underlying the dismissed charge at sentencing: ¶17 We thus […]
Guilty Pleas – Procedure – Plea Questionnaire, Generally
State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, affirming 2008 WI App 89 For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: A court may incorporate a plea questionnaire form into the guilty plea colloquy, but only up to a point: ¶32 The Plea Questionnaire/Waiver of Rights Form provides a defendant and counsel the opportunity […]
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Construction of Terms
State v. Richard L. Wesley, 2009 WI App 118, PFR filed 8/4/09 For Wesley: Alvin Ugent Issue/Holding: ¶12 The interpretation of plea agreements is rooted in contract law. See State v. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, ¶12, 274 Wis. 2d 595, 682 N.W.2d 945. Contractual language is ambiguous only when it is “reasonably or fairly susceptible […]
Witness – Personal Knowledge Requirement, § 906.02 – Computer-Generated Animation
State v. Jeremy Denton, 2009 WI App 78 / State v. Aubrey W. Dahl, 2009 WI App 78For Denton: Paul G. Bonneson For Dahl: Patrick M. Donnelly Issue/Holding: Lay witness, who testified to computer-generated animation that attempted to recreate the alleged crime through the eyes of certain witnesses, lacked personal knowledge to undertake this effort: ¶16 As […]
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.