On Point

State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250
For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne

Issue/Holding:

¶13      The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution prevent the state from trying a defendant multiple times for the same offense. [4] “[G]iven the importance of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy,

State v. Tyrone L. Dubose, 2005 WI 126
For Dubose: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the test for admissibility of a pretrial showup should be changed. (“A ‘showup’ is an out-of-court pretrial identification procedure in which a suspect is presented singly to a witness for identification purposes.” ¶1, n. 1, quoting State v. Wolverton, 193 Wis. 2d 234,

State v. Alan J. Ernst, 2005 WI 107, on certification
For Ernst: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue1: Whether violation of the standards mandated by State v. Klessig, 211 Wis. 2d 194 ¶24, 564 N.W.2d 716 (1997) for valid waiver of counsel supports a collateral attack on a prior conviction.
Holding1:

¶25      … For there to be a valid collateral attack,

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 good-faith exception is inapplicable when indicia of probable cause are so lacking as to render official belief in its existence unreasonable. This inquiry is distinct from the question of whether the supporting facts are clearly insufficient.

¶33      Under Leon‘s rationale,

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State v. Michael D. Sykes, 2005 WI 48, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals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….