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
Postconviction Procedure – Discovery – Privileged Material – Insufficient Showing for In-Camera Inspection of Victim’s Toxicology Report
State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2008 WI App 182 For Kletzien: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶8 A person convicted of a crime has a due process right to postconviction discovery if “the desired evidence is relevant to an issue of consequence.” State v. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258, ¶32, 268 Wis. 2d 468, 673 […]
Mootness: Release of Sought-After Open Record
Portage Daily Register v. Columbia Co. Sh. Dept., 2008 WI App 30 Issue/Holding: ¶8 We will generally not consider issues that are moot on appeal. See Hernandez v. Allen, 2005 WI App 247, ¶10, 288 Wis. 2d 111, 707 N.W.2d 557. However, the present appeal is not moot because our ruling will have the practical […]
Jury Instructions – Conclusive Presumptions – Misconduct in Public Office, § 946.12(3), Elements of Duty and Intent
State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31 For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger Issue/Holding: Jury instructions on the elements of duty and intent under § 946.12(3) created mandatory conclusive presumptions: ¶10 Schultz contends that the following […]
Guilty Pleas – Procedure – Factual Basis, Generally
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶33 Wisconsin Stat. § 971.08(1)(b) provides that before a circuit court accepts a defendant’s guilty plea, it must “make such inquiry as satisfies it that the defendant in fact committed the crime charged.” This court […]
Jury – Bailiff as Potential Witness
State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski Issue/Holding: Belated discovery of the bailiff’s involvement in the charged offense as a possible witness did not, under the circumstances, cause sufficient prejudice to require mistrial: ¶57 In the present case, Wolfgram was unaware of his involvement in the case until the […]
Reconfinement – Lack of Authority to Consider CIP or ERP Eligibility
State v. Antonio M. Hall, 2007 WI App 168 For Hall: Michael D. Kaiser Issue/Holding: ¶17 From our examination of these statutory provisions, we find no ambiguity in the relevant language and conclude that the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01(3g), 973.01(3m) and 302.113(9)(am) express a clear intent to restrict the sentencing discretion of the reconfinement […]
Binding Authority – Stare Decisis
State v. Vincent T. Grady, 2007 WI 81, affirming 2006 WI App 188 For Grady: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶20 A prior interpretation of a statute is applied when courts subsequently consider the same statute. Progressive Northern Ins. Co. v. Romanshek, 2005 WI 67, ¶41, 281 Wis. 2d 300, 697 N.W.2d 417. The court may overturn a prior interpretation […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Analysis: Structural Error, Generally
State v. William Troy Ford, 2007 WI 138, affirming unpublished decision For Ford: Ralph J. Sczygelski Issue/Holding ¶42 … (S)tructural error [is] a “defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991); State v. Shirley E., 2006 […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Analysis, Generally
State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: ¶47 In determining whether a constitutional error is harmless, the inquiry is as follows: “‘Is it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error?’” State […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Comments on pre-Miranda Silence
State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: Erroneous comments on pre-Miranda silence were harmless, given both infrequency of occurrence and also absence of impact on the defendant’s decision to testify (which then properly exposed him to such comment), ¶¶49-52.
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.