On Point

State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen

Issue/Holding:

¶18      Historically, we generally have interpreted Article I, Section 11 to provide the same constitutional guarantees as the Supreme Court has accorded through its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Arias, 311 Wis.  

State v. Ronald D. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93
For Luttrell: Steven Prifogle, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue: Whether a ch. 980 SVP respondent is entitled to § 971.14 competency evaluation.

Holding:

¶8        It is true, of course, that both Wis. Stat. § 971.13 and Wis. Stat. § 971.14 once applied to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments, see Smith,

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 N.W.2d 369. Whether to grant a motion requesting postconviction discovery is committed to the trial court’s discretion.

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 effect of determining the Register’s right to recover damages and fees under Wis.

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 sentences in the jury instruction given by the trial court operated as mandatory conclusive presumptions on the issues of intent and duty: “The use of a state resource to promote a candidate in a political campaign or to raise money for a candidate provides to that candidate a dishonest advantage” (establishing the intent element);

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 has determined that establishing a sufficient factual basis requires a showing that “the conduct which the defendant admits constitutes the offense charged . 

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 morning of trial.

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 court at a reconfinement hearing;

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 of a statute when it has been shown “not only that [the previous decision] was mistaken but also that it was objectively wrong,

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.