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.
Enhancers — § 939.632, School Zone — Constitutionality
State v. Leonard J. Quintana, 2008 WI 33, affirming 2007 WI App 29
For Quintana: James B. Connell, Robyn J. DeVos, William R. Kerner
Issue/Holding:
¶81 We conclude that the school zone penalty enhancer is not unconstitutional as applied to Quintana. The legislature has sought to increase the penalty for those who commit violent crimes within 1,000 feet of “school premises.”
Enhancer – Apprendi Right to Jury Trial & 5-Year Limitation Period
State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue: Whether, on a § 939.62(2) “prior-conviction” penalty enhancer, the defendant is entitled to jury resolution that the conviction was in fact within 5 years of commission of the present offense.
Holding:
¶52 … (W)hen Shepard and Apprendi are read together,
Electronic Surveillance Control Law, §§ 968.31(2)(b)-(c) — “Oral Communications” — Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Embedded in Definition
State v. Brian Harold Duchow, 2008 WI 57, reversing unpublished decision
For Duchow: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether tape-recorded statements were “oral communication” as defined in Wis. Stat. § 968.27(12).
Holding:
¶16 The legislative history of Title III indicates that Congress intended the definition of “oral communication” in Title III, which reads nearly identically to the definition contained in the Electronic Surveillance Control Law,
§ 940.25(1)(a), Injury by Intoxicated Use — No Duty to Clarify Meaning of “Materially Impaired” Element Upon Jury Request
State v. Jonathan J. Hubbard, 2008 WI 92, reversing 2007 WI App 240
For Hubbard: Steven W. Zaleski
Issue: Whether, upon jury request for clarification of “materially impaired” under the instructions for injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, § 940.25(1)(a), the trial court properly responded that the should “give all words not otherwise defined in the jury instructions their ordinary meaning.”
Holding:
¶57 The circuit court had discretion to determine the necessity for,
§§ 779.02(5), 943.20(1)(b), Theft by Contractor – Elements – Claims Against Money in Trust Fund Must Be Paid Proportionately
State v. Angela A. Keyes / Matthew E. Keyes, 2008 WI 54, affirming in part and reversing in part, 2007 WI App 163
For both Keyes: Michael J. Devanie
Issue/Holding1:
¶21 The Keyes were charged with theft by contractor under Wis. Stat. § 779.02(5), part of Wisconsin’s construction lien law. … The statute prohibits the use of the money in the trust fund for any purpose other than paying claims until such time as the claims have been paid in full.
Arrest, Search Incident to – Timing
State v. Jordan A. Denk, 2008 WI 130, on certification
For Denk: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶33 We note at the outset that Officer Hahn testified he did not place Pickering under arrest until after he had performed searches of the eyeglass case and Denk’s clothing. This fact does not alter our analysis. In State v.
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — “Protective Sweep” Doctrine: Search of Canister
State v. Dwight M. Sanders, 2008 WI 85, affirming as modified, 2007 WI App 174
For Sanders: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶35 Accepting for the moment the State’s position that articulable facts exist to demonstrate that the officer had reasonable suspicion that other persons may be lurking in the defendant’s bedroom who would pose a danger to the officers and that a protective search of the bedroom was therefore justified,
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule – Violation of Statutory Right, Generally: Suppression Need not Be Expressly Provided
State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell
Issue/Holding:
¶62 …[E]vidence obtained in violation of a statute (or not in accordance with the statute) may be suppressed under the statute to achieve the objectives of the statute, even though the statute does not expressly provide for the suppression or exclusion of the evidence.
Plain Error, § 901.03(4) – Confrontation-Based Errors: Statements by Prosecutor and Judge in Transcript Read to Jury
State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: The present convictions stemmed from Jorgensen showing up for an otherwise unrelated hearing intoxicated; without objection, the prosecutor obtained admission of that hearing’s transcript, which the trial court read to the jury: is Jorgensen entitled to relief on the ground of violation of right to confrontation,
Plea Bargains – Validity: Illusory Plea Agreement – Applicability to Dismissed Charge
State v. Jordan A. Denk, 2008 WI 130, on certification
For Denk: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where a charge dismissed by the plea bargain arguably lacks factual basis, but the defendant receives the full benefit of the plea agreement as to the counts of conviction, an argument in favor of plea-withdrawal on the basis of an “illusory” plea bargain isn’t supported:
¶69 Denk contends that § 961.573(3) does not criminalize possession of paraphernalia related to personal use.
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.