On Point

State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07
For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Unrefuted indications of the child-complainant’s changed recollection of the details and reluctance to testify, ¶¶8-9, established “substantial prejudice” so as to defeat a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw plea:

¶16      A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea before imposition of sentence must establish a fair and just reason and also “must rebut evidence of substantial prejudice to the State.” State v.

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶27      A Bangert Motion. A defendant may invoke Bangert only by alleging that the circuit court failed to fulfill its plea colloquy duties. [16] A Bangert motion warrants an evidentiary hearing if (1) the motion makes “aprima facie showing that [the] plea was accepted without the trial court’s conformance with [Wis.

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Bangert procedure applies to challenge to failure to establish adequate factual basis where the facts are disputed:

¶50      In the present case, however, the facts are in dispute precisely because the circuit court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the factual basis of the offense charged.

State v. Kevin F. McGuire, 2007 WI App 139, PFR filed 6/4/07
For McGuire: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether a promissory note is a “security” within the meaning of § 551.02(13(a).

Holding: The 4-factor test of In Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 66-67 (1990) applies: “1) the motivations of a reasonable seller and buyer; (2) the note’s ‘plan of distribution’;

State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch

Issue: Whether the scienter element of § 125.075(1) requires proof that the defendant know that a particular individual is under the legal drinking age.

Holding:

¶11   Wille makes much of the fact that Wis. Stat. § 125.075(1) refers several times to the victim in the singular: “to a person under 18 years of age”;

State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient under § 125.075(1) to show that the defendant had the underage victim had consumed alcohol provided by the defendant at a party for which the defendant supplied beer and sold red cups for the purpose of obtaining the beer (the victim became intoxicated and later died in a traffic accident after leaving the party).

State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch

Issue/Holding: 

¶31   … The State was under no obligation to establish the level of alcohol in Meshak’s blood at the time of the accident, or even to prove that he was intoxicated to the degree required for a conviction under Wis. Stat. § 346.63 (“Operating under influence of intoxicant or other drug”).

State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch

Issue/Holding: 

¶24   Wille claims the trial court erred in instructing jurors that, to find Wille guilty of the charged crime, Meshak’s consumption of alcohol provided by Wille was required to be “a” substantial factor in causing Meshak’s death, instead of “the” substantial factor, as Wille requested.

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:

¶66      Moreover, we agree with Washington that remedial contempt was not an appropriate sanction in this case. A contemnor may be imprisoned “only so long as the person is committing the contempt of court.”

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, affirming (this holding of) 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶62      Finally, we consider Lackershire’s argument that her plea was involuntary because she feared that the stress of trial would affect her pregnancy. …

…

¶64      Lackershire has raised no plausible argument that her plea was legally coerced.