On Point

State v. Robert K., 2005 WI 152, affirming unpublished opinion Issue: Whether a TPR court lost competency to proceed because the fact-finding hearing was held more than 45 days after the contested plea hearing, the time limit set by § 48.422(2). Holding: A continuance of the fact-finding hearing beyond the 45-day limit may properly be […]

Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of whether the TPR respondent is likely to be able to meet the conditions for return of her children. Holding: ¶40      In deciding the issue of foundation, the circuit […]

State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264 Issue Whether the State sufficiently proved grounds to support TPR such that the court should change the jury’s special verdict to the contrary. Holding: “Because the record contains contradictory evidence and a key witness did not testify, and because it is possible the jury did not believe […]

State v. Lamont D., 2005 WI App 264 Issue/Holding:¶1 n. 4: Lamont argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over this matter because the guardian ad litem filed the notice of appeal and the State simply joined in the appeal instead of the other way around. We reject Lamont’s contention.  WISCONSIN STAT. § 48.235(7) plainly […]

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue/Holding: ¶2        Birth-parents “have constitutionally protected rights to raise their children as they see fit, and these rights may only be circumscribed if the government proves that there is a ‘powerful countervailing interest.’” Richard D. v. Rebecca G., 228 Wis. 2d 658, 661, 599 N.W.2d 90, 92 […]

State v. Lavelle W., 2005 WI App 266 Issue: Whether the right of a parent imprisoned  in the federal system to “meaningfully participate” in a TPR proceeding was violated when he was not physically produced in court but, instead, was limited to telephonic participation. Holding: Where various mechanisms could have been utilized to produce the […]

State v. Daniel D. King, 2005WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: The confrontation clause requires that the hearsay declarant be unavailable to testify at trial “and, critically, that the State make a ‘good-faith effort’ to produce the declarant at trial,” ¶6. The trial court erred in determining that the declarant was truly […]

State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9 For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶58      … All custodial interrogation of juveniles in future cases shall be electronically recorded where feasible, and without exception when questioning occurs at a place of detention. Audiotaping is sufficient to satisfy our requirement; however, […]

State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9 For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Juvenile Jerrell C.J.’s in-custody confession was involuntary under totality of the circumstances – Jerrell’s “personal characteristics” militate against voluntariness: age (14); school records (average to failing grades) and IQ 84 (low to average); prior experience with […]

State v. Ralph D. Armstrong, 2005 WI 119, reversing unpublished decision For Armstrong: Jerome Buting; Barry Scheck Issue/Holding: Supreme court has both statutory and inherent authority to order new trial in the interest of justice, even on collateral review (as opposed to direct appeal), ¶¶119-24. (State v. Allen, 159 Wis. 2d 53, 464 N.W.2d 426 […]