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
Sentence Modification: New Factor, Generally
State v. Jose A. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals For Trujillo: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13 We define a new factor as “an event or development which frustrates the purpose of the original sentence,” Champion, 258 Wis. 2d 781, ¶4, and recognize it to be more than a change […]
SVP – Supervised Release Determination, Standard of Review on Appeal
State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555 For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8. The issue presented by the parties in the instant case is whether a circuit court’s denial of a chapter 980 petition for supervised release should be classified […]
Mootness: Revocation, Discharge from Custody
State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella Issue/Holding: ¶11. Since granting the petition for review in this case, we have determined that the issue presented is moot as to Riesch. “An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying […]
Mootness: Juvenile Extension Order
State v. Michael S., 2005 WI 82, reversing unpublished decision For Michael S.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶6 Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances. [3] A court may decide a moot issue when the issue is of great public importance; occurs frequently and a […]
SVP – Supervised Release Determination, Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555 For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the only witness at Brown’s supervised release hearing was an expert who supported release, and the evidence indisputably showed favorable response to treatment, the State failed to meet […]
SVP – Postdisposition – Petition for Supervised Release, § 980.08(4), Generally
State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555 For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶11. According to Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4), the circuit court starts in the position of having to grant a petition for supervised release. The circuit court […]
Confrontation – Hearsay – Statement of Recent Perception, § 908.045(2)
State v. Antwan B. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, affirming 2004 WI App 111 For Manuel: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1 [general principles]: Assuming that an out of court statement first satisfies a hearsay rule (¶23), it does not implicate the “core” concern of the confrontation clause unless the statement is considered “testimonial” under […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: “Testimonial” Statements – Police Interview of Victim at Hospital – Line-Up Identification
State v. Daniel D. King, 2005 WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: An interview by a detective of the victim at a hospital shortly after the charged assault, admitted into evidence as an excited utterance, is deemed “testimonial” (and, therefore, inadmissible under the confrontation clause) because it involved “response(s) to ‘structured police […]
Confrontation – Admissible Hearsay (Statement of Recent Perception) – Roberts Analysis Surviving Crawford
State v. Antwan B. Manuel, 2005 WI 75, affirming 2004 WI App 111 For Manuel: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1 [general principles]: The two-part analysis of Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) survives Crawford for use in determining Confrontation Clause admissibility of nontestimonial statements, ¶¶54-61 (unavailable declarant, and adequate indicia of reliability). […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: Former Testimony, § 908.045(1) — Codefendant’s Separate Trial
State v. Glenn H. Hale, 2005 WI 7, affirming, as modified, 2003 WI App 238 For Hale: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Under Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004), prior testimony at a codefendant’s separate trial is inadmissible at Hale’s trial, given that the previously testifying witness cannot be located. ¶¶53-58. […]
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.