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
Fines – Exercise of Discretion – Articulation of Sentencing Objectives and Determination of Ability to Pay
State v. Ahern Ramel, 2007 WI App 271 For Ramel: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶14 A fine that an offender has the ability to pay may satisfy sentencing objectives the trial court has found to be material and relevant to the particular defendant. See id. Here, however, with no explanation from the sentencing court of how […]
OWI – Second or Subsequent Offense – Out-of-State Administrative (Non-Refusal) Suspension Doesn’t Qualify
State v. Daniel J. Machgan, 2007 WI App 263 For Machgan: Patrick M. Donnelly Issue/Holding: An out-of-state administrative DL suspension, not the result of a refusal, isn’t counted as a “conviction” for purposes of OWI enhancement: ¶12 After examination of these relevant statutes, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 343.307, as the specific statute addressing out-of-state convictions, suspensions or revocations that […]
Hit-and-Run, § 346.67(1)(a) – Elements – Operator ID
State v. Aprylann Wuteska, 2007 WI App 157, PFR filed 6/14/07 For Wuteska: Mark H. Bennett Issue/Holding: The plain text of § 346.67(1)(a) requires the operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to a person or damage to a vehicle to identify him or herself as the operator: ¶13 Applying these principles, we […]
Hit & Run, § 346.67(1) – Elements – “Highway”
State v. Dawn R. Dartez, 2007 WI App 126, PFR filed 4/23 For Dartez: Bill Ginsberg Issue/Holding: The definition of “highway” for purposes of the hit-and-run statute, § 346.67(1), is found in § 340.01(22), ¶ n. 3.
Hit & Run, § 346.67(1) – Elements – “Accident” Occurring on “Highway,” and Relation to Private Property
State v. Dawn R. Dartez, 2007 WI App 126, PFR filed 4/23 For Dartez: Bill Ginsberg Issue: Whether hit-and-run liability attaches to an accident occurring on private property. Holding: ¶13 In this case, as already noted, we are concerned with the meaning of “accident” in Wis. Stat. § 346.67(1) in conjunction with the requirement of “upon the highway” […]
Implied Consent – Test for Adequacy of Warning, Generally
State v. Darren A. Kliss, 2007 WI App 13 For Kliss: Michael C. Witt Issue/Holding: ¶7 … Because the implied consent law makes no provision for the right to counsel, an officer is correct to record a refusal if the arrestee insists on speaking to an attorney before answering.…¶8 … County of Ozaukee v. Quelle, 198 […]
Refusal, § 343.305(9) and Implied Consent Law – Interaction with Miranda Warnings
State v. Darren A. Kliss, 2007 WI App 13 For Kliss: Michael C. Witt Issue/Holding: Administering Miranda rights prior to the “Informing the Accused” caution applicable to OWI does not invalidate the latter (at least where the motorist is concurrently under arrest for a separate crime): ¶14 There is no dispute that Thomas read Kliss the Miranda warning […]
OWI – “Materially Impaired” – Judicial Construction, State v. Waalen, Absorbed into Elemental Meaning
State v. Jonathan J. Hubbard, 2007 WI App 240, (AG’s) PFR filed 11/20/07 For Hubbard: Steven Zaleski Issue/Holding: The construction of “materially impaired” by State v. Waalen, 130 Wis. 2d 18, 27, 386 N.W.2d 47 (1986), clarifies the meaning of that OWI element: ¶9 In Waalen, … (t)he court stated that material impairment “exists when a person is incapable […]
Enhancer – Timing of Prior Conviction – Tolling During “Intensive Sanctions”
State v. Steven L. Pfeil, 2007 WI App 241 For Pfeil: John P. Tedesco, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Time spent in custody of the (now-lapsed) division of intensive sanctions tolls the limitation period for prior convictions, § 939.62(2): ¶2 …. We conclude that supervision under the intensive sanctions program constitutes “actual confinement” within the meaning of […]
Due Process – Identifcation Procedure – Photo Array: Analysis Unchanged by Dubose Show-up Standard<
State v. Ryan W. Drew, 2007 WI App 213, PFR filed 9/27/07 For Drew: Steven Zaleski Issue/Holding: Analysis of admissibility of photo array ID remains unchanged by the new standard for show-ups set by State v. Tyrone L. Dubose, 2005 WI 126: ¶2 We conclude that Dubose did not alter the standard for determining whether admission of an […]
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.