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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
SVP – Discharge Petition – Circuit Court Review, § 980.09 (2005-06) – Showing Necessary for Evidentiary Hearing
State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09 For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue: Whether § 980.09 (2005-06) grants the circuit court a greater “gatekeeper role” than the prior statute in ordering an evidentiary hearing on a discharge petition. Holding: ¶22 The State’s premise that the new statute grants the circuit court a greater […]
SVP Commitments – Discharge Petition – Review by Circuit Court, § 980.09 (2005-06) – Generally
State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09 For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: ¶14 Unlike the previous statutory provision, the current Wis. Stat. § 980.09 does not distinguish between petitions made with or without the approval of the DHFS secretary. Furthermore, a discharge petition no longer automatically triggers a probable cause hearing. Rather, […]
SVP Commitments – Discharge Petition, § 980.09 (2005-06) – Allegations Sufficed for Evidentiary Hearing
State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09 For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: ¶24 In his petition, Arends alleged that his condition had changed such that he no longer met the definition of a sexually violent person because (1) “the passage of time demonstrated that anti-social behavior expected under an earlier diagnosis […]
SVP Commitments – Statement to Field Agent: Compelled, Inadmissible (Under Since-Repealed Statute)
State v. Charles W. Mark, 2008 WI App 44; on appeal following remand in State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90 For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: A parolee’s statement made under grant of immunity (per State v. Evans, 77 Wis. 2d 225, 252 N.W.2d 664 (1977)), was compelled (therefore […]
Sentencing – Factors – Harm to Victim: Threats While Case Pending, Inability to Attribute to Defendant
State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08 For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue: Whether threats made to the victims, while the prosecution was pending, to try to dissuade them from testifying were relevant to sentence despite absence of evidence linking threats to the defendant himself. Holding: ¶41 The court process […]
Sentencing – Review – Articulation of Factors – Ruminations about Defendant’s Mental Health
State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08 For Sherman: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: The sentencing court’s observations to the effect that the defendant was “a sick man” didn’t amount to “unsupported findings about his mental health: ¶14 At Sherman’s postconviction hearing, the court indicated that its comments did not reflect medical diagnoses, […]
Sentencing – Review – Articulation of Factors – Consideration of Sentences in Other, Similar Cases (Individualized Sentencing)
State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08 For Sherman: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: ¶15 Sherman claims the only evidence about his mental health came from his expert, Dr. Gerald Wellens. Sherman claims the court failed to consider his expert’s opinion. However, at sentencing, the court expressly considered Wellens’ opinion. The court noted […]
Sentencing Guidelines – Failure to Consider – Harmless, Where Sentence Concurrent to Other, Unchallenged Sentence
State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08 For Sherman: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: Sentencing failure to consider applicable guidelines, § 973.017(2)(a), was harmless error, at least where the controlling sentence was untainted by the error: ¶9 We conclude that the circuit court’s failure to consider the sentencing guidelines for the two Wis. Stat. […]
Confrontation – Forfeiture, pre-Giles (2008)
Go: here. Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) fundamentally altered the confrontation-forfeiture doctrine: There, the Court held in effect that the forfeiture doctrine “applie(s) only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying,” although the Court also allowed that “(e)arlier abuse, or threats of abuse, intended to dissuade the […]
Confrontation – Expert Opinion Based on Hearsay
State v. Craig A. Swope, 2008 WI App 175 For Swope: Dianne M. Erickson Issue: Whether an FBI agent’s expert opinion, that the simultaneous deaths of an elderly couple were the result of homicide rather than natural causes, was improperly based on hearsay, namely the opinions of two non-testifying experts who thought the likelihood of […]
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.