On Point

City of Sheboygan v. Steven Nytsch, 2006 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/11/06
For Nytsch: Chad A. Lanning

Issue: Whether a prior judicial review of a driver’s license suspension, overturning the administrative suspension, had a preclusive effect on the issue of probable cause to arrest for drunk driving in the subsequent prosecution for that offense.

Holding:

¶11 Thus, a threshold prerequisite for application of the doctrine is that,

Village of Cross Plains v. Kristin J. Haanstad, 2006 WI 16, reversing unpublished decision
For Haanstad: John M. Gerlach

Issue: Whether sitting in the driver’s seat of a running, parked car is, without more, “operating” a motor vehicle within § 346.63.

Holding:

¶15 The term “operate” is defined in § 346.63(3)(b), which reads: “‘Operate’” means the physical manipulation or activation of any of the controls of a motor vehicle necessary to put it in motion.”¶16 The court of appeals’

State v. Alvin M. Moore, 2006 WI App 61, PFR filed 3/21/06
For Moore: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶15      Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single criminal offense in more than one count. State v. Grayson, 172 Wis. 2d 156, 159, 493 N.W.2d 23 (1992). Claims of multiplicity are analyzed using a two-prong test that requires examination of: (1) “whether the charged offenses are identical in law and fact;” and (2) if they are not,

State v. Jose M. Jaimes, 2006 WI App 93, PFR filed 5/11/06
For Jaimes: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: Retrial is ordinarily not barred when the defendant successfully requests mistrial, except where prosecutorial overreaching, comprised of the following elements, has been shown: the prosecutor’s has “ a culpable state of mind in the nature of an awareness that his activity would be prejudicial to the defendant”;

State v. Jose M. Jaimes, 2006 WI App 93, PFR filed 5/11/06
For Jaimes: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding:

¶11      Next, Jaimes argues that the prosecutor’s responsibility to avoid provoking a mistrial must extend to the law enforcement officers who testify at trial …. In effect, Jaimes argues that the officer’s testimony must be imputed to the prosecutor, and when an officer testifies about explicitly excluded evidence,

State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision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

Issue: Whether CCAP entries can satisfy the State’s burden of proving a repeater allegation.

Holding: Although the rules of evidence do not apply to proof of a repeater and a prior conviction need not be proved by certification,

(¶46) a CCAP report,

State v. Otis G. Mattox, 2006 WI App 110
For Mattox: Scott D. Obernberger

Issue: Whether grant of mistrial over objection, after defense counsel was held in contempt for supposedly violating a court order with respect to questioning a witness, was manifestly necessary so as to permit retrial.

Holding:

¶19      As noted, the chief concerns of the trial court in continuing the trial were the problems occasioned by Schnake being found in contempt,

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

Issue: Whether post-plea amendment of the repeater allegation to change its basis prejudiced the defendant hence was improper.

Holding:

¶31      It is the State’s burden to prove that Bonds was not prejudiced and Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1) was satisfied through notice of sufficient allegations of the basis for charging habitual criminality. 

State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 ( prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Failure to move for mistrial waives objection to closing argument, ¶28, citing State v. Dale H. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, ¶86, 236 Wis.

State v. Xavier J. Rockette (II), 2006 WI App 103, PFR filed 6/29/06 (prior unrelated appeal involving same defendant, different case: 2005 WI App 205)
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Failure to disclose evidence that a prosecution witness had falsely implicated Rockette in another homicide did not violate Brady, because it would not have had an impact on the outcome of the trial:

¶41      Evidence of impeachment is material if the witness whose testimony is attacked “supplied the only evidence linking the defendant(s) to the crime,” United States v.