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
Witness – Impeachment — § 906.06, Motive to Lie
State v. Walter T. Missouri, 2006 WI App 74 For Missouri: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue: Whether the defense should have been allowed to cross-examine the arresting officer about an instance of misconduct between the officer and a third party which was assertedly very similar to the defense theory that the officer mistreated the defendant and planted […]
Opinion & Expert Testimony – Eyewitness Identification – Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineup
State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman Issue/Holding: Trial court’s refusal to admit expert testimony on factors influencing witness’s ability to identify a stranger during a lineup procedure, in particular the distorting effect of a simultaneous as opposed to sequential procedure, was not […]
Excited Utterance — General
State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8 For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: ¶48 Here, Adams’ statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance hearsay exception. Adams spontaneously made the statements, without police prompting, under the stress of watching her cousin being taken into custody at gunpoint. It was only one to two […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Potential Punishment: Kidnapping Mitigation
State v. Reinier A. Ravesteijn, 2006 WI App 250 For Ravesteijn: Rudolph L. Oldeschulte Issue/Holding: Although kidnapping for ransom, § 940.31(2)(a), is susceptible to possible mitigation of penalty from 60 to 40 years if the victim is released without permanent physical injury, testimony from counsel at a postconviction hearing that the defendant was well aware […]
Witness – Impeachment (Hearsay Statement) — Bias: Gang Affiliation
State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06 For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the defendant’s brother testified that the non-testifying complainant had recanted, the prosecution could impeach the brother with the possibility that the complainant was motivated by fear due to the brother’s gang affiliation, ¶31: “A witness’s […]
Witness – Impeachment – Bias – Generally
State v. Justin Yang, 2006 WI App 48 For Olson: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: ¶11 Inquiry into a witness’s bias is always material and relevant. State v. Williamson, 84 Wis. 2d 370, 383, 267 N.W.2d 337, 343 (1978) (bias and improper motive of witness are never collateral). John Henry Wigmore has characterized cross-examination as “beyond any […]
Unfair Prejudice, § 904.03 – Misconduct Evidence, Marijuana Use — § 940.10(1), Homicide by Negligent Operation of Vehicle
State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06 For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1: Evidence of the driver’s marijuana use just before the accident resulting in the charged homicide by negligent use of vehicle was relevant and admissible: ¶48 Although the toxicology expert could not tie the level of THC detected in […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Innocence – Offer to Take Polygraph
State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman Issue/Holding: ¶39 Finally, we determine that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing to admit testimony regarding Shomberg’s offer to take a polygraph examination. … However, such an offer is only “relevant […]
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity – Particular Crimes – Reckless Injury – Same Victim, Multiple Blows
State v. Rachel W. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, reversing unpublished decision For Kelty: Michael J. Fairchild Issue/Holding: The defendant’s striking the victim “twice with two separate objects, each time committing herself to strike the baby, each blow separate, distinct, not identical in fact,” supports two separate charges of first-degree reckless injury, § 940.23(1)(a), ¶¶49-50.
OWI — Enhancement – Collateral Attack, Prior Refusal
State v. Keith S. Krause, 2006 WI App 43 For Krause: Roger G. Merry Issue/Holding: Because collateral attack on a prior conviction used as a sentencing enhancer is limited to denial of counsel, and because the right to counsel does not attach to a civil proceeding, a refusal revocation is not subject to collateral attack on […]
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.