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
Binding Authority – Law of the Case Doctrine – Inapplicable to Trial-Level Decisions
State v. Kevin Brown, 2006 WI App 41 For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶10 We first examine the trial court’s reliance on the earlier order and its determination that it was “the law of the case.” Citing Univest Corp. v. General Split Corp., 148 Wis. 2d 29, 38, 435 N.W.2d 234 (1989), […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Conviction on Lesser Offense
State v. Quentrell E. Williams, 2006 WI App 212 For Williams: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶23, n.5: Williams also contends that the evidence was relevant to whether he intentionally caused harm to A.B.A. because intentional child abuse is a specific intent crime. However, Williams was acquitted of intentionally causing harm to a […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Erroneous Admission of Misconduct Evidence (of Uncharged Child Sexual Assault)
State v. Randy Mcgowan, 2006 WI App 80 For Mcgowan: Dianne M. Erickson Issue/Holding: Wrongful admission of misconduct evidence was reversible error: ¶37 Based on our review, we are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of Janis’s testimony did not contribute to the verdict. The State’s case was based entirely on various […]
Restitution – Ability to Pay as Factor ( Dicta)
State v. Anthony D., 2006 WI App 218 For Anthony D.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate Dicta: ¶7 n. 2: We note that the language of the juvenile restitution statute differs from that of the criminal restitution statute, Wis. Stat. § 973.20. The criminal statute does not require the court to make a finding that the […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Right to Present Defense
State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10 For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: Any error in exclusion of evidence claimed necessary to support the theory of imperfect self-defense would have been harmless: ¶26 … Our inquiry, therefore, is whether it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error Analysis – Joinder
State v. Bruce T. Davis, 2006 WI App 23 For Davis: Russell Bohach Issue/Holding: Misjoined counts were harmful error, notwithstanding a curative instruction, where the only evidence connecting Davis to the crimes were eyewitnesses who, although they ID’ed Davis, gave “quite varied” descriptions to the police, ¶22.
Resentencing – Imposition of Incorrect Penalty Scheme
State v. Ronnie L. Thums, 2006 WI App 173 For Thums: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The remedy for a sentence imposed under an incorrect penalty scheme is resentencing: ¶14 Both parties agree that if the sentence the circuit court imposed was improper, Thums is entitled to be resentenced as to both components of […]
Review — Reconfinement Sentence (After Revocation of Extended Supervision)
State v. Donald Odom, 2006 WI App 145 For Odom: Eileen Miller Carter; J.C. Moore, SPD, Milwaukee Trial Issue/Holding: The requirement of sentencing after probation revocation that the judge review the original sentencing transcript, State v. Reynolds, 2002 WI App 15, 249 Wis. 2d 798, 643 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 2001), does not apply to reconfinement after […]
Presentence Report — Sentencing Factor, pre-Gallion – Generally
State v. Germaine M. Taylor, 2006 WI 22, affirming unpublished summary order For Taylor: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶28 In terms of the length of his sentence, Taylor argues that there appeared to be no “starting point” for the court of some very low period of confinement, or even the period of confinement recommended […]
Constitutionality of Ch. 980 – Absence of Proof of “Imminent” Danger
State v. Terry L. Olson, 2006 WI App 32, PFR filed 3/16 For Olson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether ch. 980 is unconstitutional because the SVP definition of “dangerousness” is not linked to imminent risk. Holding: ¶5 We deem Olson’s reliance on Lessard misplaced. In 2002, our own supreme court considered a challenge to Wis. Stat. ch. 51 […]
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.