On Point

State v. Willie B. Cole, 2008 WI App 178
For Cole: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue/Holding:

¶25      …  If a suspect requests counsel at any time during the interview, he or she is not subject to further questioning until a lawyer has been made available or the suspect himself or herself reinitiates conversation. …

¶26      The Fifth Amendment/ Miranda right to counsel during custodial interrogations is not offense specific. 

State v. Scott M. Hambly, 2008 WI 10, affirming 2006 WI App 256

For Hambly: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶93      The defendant summarizes his argument that he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to counsel, stating that at the time of his arrest, he was hungry, alone in the back seat of a squad car,

State v. Scott M. Hambly, 2008 WI 10, affirming 2006 WI App 256
For Hambly: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶77      Whether a suspect “initiates” communication or dialogue does not depend solely on the time elapsing between the invocation of the right to counsel and the suspect’s beginning an exchange with law enforcement, although the lapse of time is a factor to consider.…

¶82      … [T]he defendant’s statement here that he did not understand why he was under arrest was clearly seeking information and constituted an initiation of communication with Rindt in the most ordinary sense of the word.

State v. Scott M. Hambly, 2008 WI 10, affirming 2006 WI App 256
For Hambly: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a suspect’s in-custody invocation of right to counsel before administration of Miranda warnings triggers the Edwards bar on interrogation absent the suspect’s reinitiating communication with the police.

Holding:

¶23      The State argues that in the present case when the defendant asked for an attorney he was not subject to custodial interrogation.

State v. Jordan A. Denk, 2008 WI 130, on certification
For Denk: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶29      When we accept certification from the court of appeals, we acquire jurisdiction of the entire appeal. We thus consider all issues raised before the court of appeals. See Wis. Stat. §§ 808.05(2) and (Rule) 809.61; State v.

State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) (2003-04) recognizes the plain error doctrine. [3] The plain error doctrine allows appellate courts to review errors that were otherwise waived by a party’s failure to object.  State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78,

State v. Clayborn L. Walker, 2008 WI 34, reversing 2007 WI App 142
For Walker: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue: Whether the judge is required, at a TIS reconfinement hearing, to have read the original sentencing transcript.

Holding:

¶3        We agree with the State and conclude that State v. Gee [3] misinterpreted our decision in Brown.

State v. Clayborn L. Walker, 2008 WI 34, reversing 2007 WI App 142
For Walker: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding:

¶14      As a preliminary matter, while the issue before the court is moot because Walker has completed his reconfinement term and thus our decision will not affect the underlying controversy, we may at times consider a moot issue if it is of “great public importance or arises frequently enough to warrant a definitive decision to guide the circuit courts.”

State v. Carmen L. Doss, 2008 WI 93, reversing 2007 WI App 208
For Doss: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether the authenticating affidavit of a bank record was “testimonial” within the Confrontation Clause.

Holding:

¶45      The parties do not dispute that the circuit court correctly described Crawford and Manuel as identifying business records as nontestimonial,

Waukesha County v. Eric D. Smith, 2008 WI 23, affirming unpublished decision
For Smith: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: By reading the required statutory information verbatim, the officer fully complied with § 343.305(4); he did not err by failing to inform the driver that he might incur penalties different from those in Wisconsin relative to the state that issued his license nor by telling the driver that if he refused to take the chemical test he would get a hearing within 10 days.