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.
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 of more than one construction.” State v.
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 a lay witness,
Opinion Testimony – Comment by One Witness Whether another Witness Truthful
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161
For Patterson: David R. Karpe
Issue/Holding:
¶35 The first three alleged instances of misconduct are similar. In each instance, the prosecutor sought to demonstrate the possible unreliability of one witness’s recollection by using seemingly inconsistent recollections of another witness. For example, in one instance the prosecutor asked: “So if all other witnesses said that at 11:00 your mom was already home … that would be wrong?” We see no Haseltine problem with these three instances because the prosecutor was not asking a witness to opine as to whether another witness was telling the truth.¶36 The fourth alleged instance does appear to have involved a Haseltineviolation.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Collateral Consequence: Firearm Possession Prohibition, Disorderly Conduct as “Crime of Domestic Violence”
State v. Joseph E. Koll, Jr., 2009 WI App 74, PFR filed 4/29/09
For Koll: Alexander L. Ullenberg
Issue: Whether Koll’s conviction of so-called “non-domestic” disorderly conduct was for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A), so as to preclude him from obtaining a handgun.
Holding: The federal Gun Control Act bars gun possession to anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” 18 U.S.C.
Rebuttal Witness – Test for “Bona Fide” Rebuttal
State v. Juan M. Sandoval, 2009 WI App 61, PFR filed 5/6/09
For Sandoval: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The State need not disclose bona fide rebuttal evidence, the test for which turns on whether the evidence “only became necessary at rebuttal” (as opposed to whether it would have been admissible or useful in the State’s case-in-chief), ¶¶30-34.
¶33 We are convinced that the State satisfied the law of Wisconsin in this case.
§ 904.04, Self-Defense – “McMorris” Acts of Prior Violence by Victim – Generally
State v. Jason L. McClaren, 2009 WI 60, reversing 2008 WI App 118
For McClaren: Michael C. Witt
Issue/Holding:
¶21 It is well established that a defendant seeking to support a self-defense claim may attempt to “prov[e] prior specific instances of violence within [the defendant’s] knowledge at the time of the incident.” State v. Wenger, 225 Wis.
Due Process – Defendant’s Right to Testify – Retraction of Waiver – Offer of Proof Required
State v. Ronnie Lee Winters, 2009 WI App 48, PFR filed 4/8/09
For Winters: Ralph Sczygelski
Issue/Holding: Where the defendant validly waived his right to testify but then, after the state had rested and released its rebuttal witnesses, sought to retract the waiver, his failure to make an offer of proof as to the substance of his proposed testimony, either at trial or on postconviction motion,
Due Process – Defendant’s Right to Testify – Exercise of Right: Knowing, Voluntary Waiver of Right Not to Testify
State v. Mark A. Jaramillo, 2009 WI App 39
For Jaramillo: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court must conduct a colloquy before a defendant testifies to determine whether waiver of the right not to testify is knowing and voluntary.
Holding:
¶16 We have previously noted that we do “not possess any supervisory authority which would permit [us] to promulgate rules of criminal practice and procedure.” State v.
Due Process – Notice of Charge – Sufficient to Allege Elements, Specific Acts Unnecessary
State v. Janet A. Conner, 2009 WI App 143, PFR filed 9/28/09
For Conner: J. Steven House
Issue/Holding: An information alleging the elements of stalking, § 940.32(2m)(b), but not the acts allegedly establishing the “course of conduct,” provided adequate notice of the charge; court rejecting argument that Connor deprived of notice of “time frame in which the crime allegedly occurred.”
State v.
Defenses – “Statutory Double Jeopardy” – Drug Offenses, § 961.45 – “Same Conduct” Test
State v. Julio C. Bautista, 2009 WI App 100, PFR filed 7/16/09
For Bautista: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Section 961.45 bars successive drug prosecutions by dual sovereignties premised on the “same act” (or “conduct”), State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53. Although broader than the Blockburger “elements-only” test, this “same-conduct” test does not bar state prosecution for conspiracy to deliver marijuana following federal conviction for delivering cocaine.
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.