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
Presentence Report — Bias of Author: Spouse of Another Agent Concurrently Responsible for Defendant’s Supervision
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07 For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear Issue/Holding: The rule of State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997) (conflict of interest where PSI author married to defendant’s prosecutor) does not extend to situation where PSI author is married to another […]
Presentence Report – Miranda Warnings
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07 For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear Issue/Holding: Thexton wasn’t entitled to Miranda warnings “at the time the PSI was being prepared”: ¶8 Thexton also claims that Streekstra violated his Fifth Amendment rights when he interviewed him during the investigation. Thexton claims that Streekstra used the prior PSI as […]
Presentence Report – Right to Counsel
State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07 For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear Issue/Holding: The agent’s use of a prior PSI during the interview of defendant for the current case did not trigger any additional right to counsel: ¶10 Thexton further argues that his right to counsel was violated because he was unable to consult […]
Tuberculosis Treatment Commitment, § 252.07 – Confinement: Consideration of Costs
City of Milwaukee v. Ruby Washington, 2007 WI 104, affirming 2006 WI App 99 For Washington: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Karl Otto Rohlich, SPD, Milwaukee Mental Health Amicus: Colleen Ball, ACLU Issue/Holding: ¶53 We conclude that a circuit court may take into account cost when determining place of confinement under Wis. Stat. § 252.07(9). A court must first determine […]
SVP Commitments – Evidence — Disposition Alternatives – Irrelevancy of DOC Supervision
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245 For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Evidence that SVP respondent would be under DOC supervision if not committed under ch. 980 properly excluded as irrelevant, ¶¶8-14 (“the fact of supervision is irrelevant to whether Budd is a sexually violent person under § 980.01(7),” ¶14).The court […]
SVP Commitments – Evidence – “Screening Process” for 980 Candidates
State v. Owen Budd, 2007 WI App 245 For Budd: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence as to the “screening process” for referring SVP cases, which had the effect of informing the jury that fewer than 5% of eligible sex offenders are selected for commitment proceedings. Holding: […]
SVP Commitment – Test for Commitment: Risk of Offense “More Likely Than Not” = Greater Than 50%
State v. Barry L. Smalley, 2007 WI App 219, PFR filed 10/19/07 For Smalley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: “(T)he phrase ‘more likely than not’ in the statute means what it says: that an event is more likely to occur than not to occur; that is, has a greater than 50% chance of happening. Thus, […]
SVP Commitment – Use Of Actuarials
State v. Barry L. Smalley, 2007 WI App 219, PFR filed 10/19/07 For Smalley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶18 Smalley notes that the actuarial instruments fail to take an individual’s mental disorder into account, and that they therefore predict dangerousness in general, rather than dangerousness due to mental disorder. He argues that because […]
SVP Commitments – Proof of Overt Act of Dangerousness: Not Required as Matter of Equal Protection
State v. Steven C. Feldmann, 2007 WI App 35, PFR filed 3/23/07 For Feldmann: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The ch. 980 omission of required proof of a recent overt act of sexual violence does not violate equal protection, as compared with the ch. 51 mental health commitment requirement of proof of a recent overt […]
Re-Sentencing – Generally
State v. Lorenzo Wood, 2007 WI App 190, PFR filed 8/16/07 For Wood: Michael D. Kaiser Issue/Holding: ¶6 “When a resentencing is required for any reason, the initial sentence is a nullity; it ceases to exist.” Carter, 208 Wis. 2d at 154. In resentencing “the court imposes a new sentence after the initial sentence has been held […]
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.