On Point

 State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2006 WI 77, reversing 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel

Issue/Holding:

¶36      The parties agree with the court of appeals that the circuit court’s communications with the jury outside the presence of the defendant is error, violating the defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to be present.  We agree with the parties.…

¶63      (W)hatever the requirement for an accused’s waiver of the right to be present when a circuit court communicates with the jury,

Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals, 2006 WI 86

Issue/Holding:

¶14      By granting deference to agency interpretations, the court has not abdicated, and should not abdicate, its authority and responsibility to interpret statutes and decide questions of law. Some cases, however, mistakenly fail to state, before launching into a discussion of the levels of deference, that the interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law to be determined by a court. 

State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
For Shirley E.: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶63      Depriving a parent of the statutory right to counsel in a termination of parental rights proceeding deprives the parent of a basic protection without which, according to our legislature, a termination of a parental rights proceeding cannot reliably serve its function.

State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, affirming 2006 WI App 44
For Brown: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Amicus: Robert R. Henak and Amelia L. Bizzaro; Walter J. Dickey & David E. Schultz

Issue/Holding:

¶22     We conclude that a reconfinement decision, like an initial sentencing decision, involves the circuit court’s discretion, and we review the circuit court’s decision to determine whether that discretion was erroneously exercised. 

State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, affirming, 2004 WI App 39
For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding1: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release did not “shock the conscience,” hence did not violate substantive due process, where the failure occurred despite good-faith, substantial efforts to comply with the order, ¶31.

Issue/Holding2: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release violated procedural due process.

State v. Larry A. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, reversing 2005 WI App 179
For Tiepelman: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, on a claim that the sentence violated due process because based on inaccurate information, the defendant must show not only sentencing court reliance on the inaccurate information, but also prejudicial reliance.

Holding:

¶2        We hold that in a motion for resentencing based on a circuit court’s alleged reliance on inaccurate information,

Root v. Saul, 2006 WI App 106
For Root: Thomas E. Hayes

Issue/Holding: Either slapping or punching someone in the face “is certainly conduct that can provoke others to attack”; and, because Saul indisputably slapped or punched Root in the face the jury could have found Saul the initial aggressor, the jury should have been instructed in accordance with Wis JI—Criminal 815 (embodying § 939.48(2), initial aggressor may not assert self-defense privilege except under enumerated circumstances),

State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶42      Where a valid order or judgment is a necessary condition for one of the elements of a crime, a collateral attack upon the order or judgment can negate an element of the crime if the order or judgment is void. See State v.

State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision
For Bonds: Jeremy C. Perri, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to the manner of proving a repeater allegation (via CCAP) did not constitute waiver of an objection that the proof was insufficient:

¶51      The State contends that we concluded in Saunders that an objection to the sufficiency of the evidence of habitual criminality must be made in the circuit court or it is waived.

State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman

Issue/Holding:

 ¶27     In St. George, this court held that the circuit court’s exclusion of testimony of a defense expert about the victim’s recantation, and about interview techniques particular to child sexual assault cases, unconstitutionally deprived the defendant of his right to present a defense.