On Point

State v. Bill P. Marquardt, 2005 WI 157, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 219
For Marquardt: John Brinckman; Patricia A. Fitzgerald

Issue/Holding: The search warrant was supported by sufficient “indicia of probable cause” to trigger the good-faith exception, including the following: Marquardt had not been seen for two days following his mother’s homicide, raising suspicion about his absence; the victim was covered in a blanket,

State v. Michael D. Sykes, 2005 WI 48, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Sykes: Jeffrey J. De La Rosa

Issue/Holding: Where the police had probable cause to arrest for criminal trespass, they did not have to subjectively intend to arrest the person for that offense in order to perform a search incident to arrest. And, though the search must be “contemporaneous” with the arrest (relatedly: probable cause must exist independent of the fruits of the search),

State v. James P., 2005 WI 80, affirming, 2004 WI App 124

Issue: Whether biological father’s parental rights could be terminated on the ground of “abandonment” where he was not adjudicated as father until after alleged periods of abandonment.

Holding:

¶15 We hold that an individual who is in fact the biological father of a nonmarital child satisfies the definition of “parent”

Sheboygan County DSS v. Rachel B., 2005 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision
IssueWhether competency challenge to a TPR proceeding is waived under § 48.422(2) if not first raised in circuit court.

Holding:

¶2        We conclude such a competency challenge based on the violation of the statutory time limitation of Wis. Stat. § 48.422(2) cannot be waived, even though it was not raised in the circuit court. 

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶59      To earn a Bangert evidentiary hearing, a defendant must satisfy a second obligation. In addition to making a prima facie case that the circuit court erred in the plea colloquy, a defendant must allege he did not enter a knowing,

State v. Derek Anderson, 2005 WI 54, on certification
For Anderson: Neil C. McGinn, SPD, Milwaukee Trial; Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶59 We agree with the State that while Krnak’s statement to Ellifson does not technically qualify as an excited utterance, or statement of recent perception due to timing problems, it does qualify under the residual hearsay exception because it contains several guarantees of trustworthiness similar to those found in statements admitted under the excited utterance exception….

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]:

¶29      … As this court summarized in Weed, for a statement to fit recent perception exception, it must pass the following three criteria:

(1) the statement was not made in response to the instigation of a person engaged in investigating,

State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification

For Subpoenaed Individual: Stephen P. Hurley, Marcus J. Berghahn, Hal Harlowe

Issue/Holding:

¶15      A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that normally will not issue except in the absence of other adequate remedies. [6]As a remedy, writs of prohibition are often used in connection with John Doe proceedings.

State v. Eric W. Raye, 2005 WI 68, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Raye: Brian C. Hough

Issue: Whether the defendant failed to lodge contemporaneous objection (which would have waived appellate challenge) to a non-unanimous verdict revealed during jury polling when a juror indicated he did not in fact subscribe to the purported guilty verdict.

Holding:

¶29 Ultimately,

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:

¶71      The State’s interest in terminating parental rights promptly does not outweigh the requirements of fundamental fairness and Shannon R.’s constitutionally protected due process right to be heard in a meaningful manner.