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.
Enhancer – Proof – CCAP Entries
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision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,
Double Jeopardy – Bar on Retrial: Mistrial over Defense Objection – Counsel Held in Contempt (Itself Later Reversed on Appeal)
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,
Enhancer – Pleading – Post-Plea Amendment
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision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.
Waiver – Closing Argument: Failure to Move for Mistrial
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.
Due Process – Exculpatory Evidence, Failure to Disclose – Impeachment: Not Material, Where Cumulative
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.
Enhancer – Pleading – Generally
State v. Jamale A. Bonds, 2006 WI 83, reversing unpublished decision
For Bonds: Jeremy C. Perri, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶30 When considered together, this precedent establishes the following principles:
(1) The purpose of the allegations of repeater status in a charging document is to provide the defendant with sufficient notice of the potential maximum penalty he faces in order that the defendant may make an informed plea.
Due Process – Identifcation Procedure – Show-up – “Accidental” Encounter
State v. Brian Hibl, 2006 WI 52, reversing 2005 WI App 228
For Hibl: Joel H. Rosenthal
Issue: Whether an identification resulting from an “accidental” encounter between witness and defendant in a courthouse hallway immediately before trial is suppressible, in the absence of any evidence that this incident involved a law enforcement procedure directed at obtaining an identification.
Holding:
¶31 For the reasons stated below,
Due Process – Right to Present Defense – Generally: Limited to Relevant Evidence
State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶33 The Sixth Amendment and Due Process Clause right to present a defense requires that a defendant be allowed to introduce relevant evidence, subject to reasonable restrictions. …
¶34 The right to present a defense does not require that a defendant be allowed to present irrelevant evidence.
Due Process – Right to Present Defense – Prosecution Witness’s Attempts to Curry Favor in Other Cases – Cumulative to Credibility
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: Excluding evidence that in other, unrelated instances a witness had lied to the police in an attempt to curry favor in his own criminal cases did violate Rockette’s right to present a defense,
Due Process – Presumptions, Generally
State v. Eric Benjamin Gardner, 2006 WI App 92
For Gardner: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶9 In addressing this issue, it is first necessary to define what a presumption is and when a presumption denies a criminal defendant due process. A presumption allows a “trier of fact to determine the existence of an element of the crime–that is, an ‘ultimate’ or ‘elemental’ fact–from the existence of one or more ‘evidentiary’ or ‘basic’ facts.” Ulster County Court v.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.