On Point

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

¶15      Here, too, we examine the statute providing for the crime, Wis. Stat. § 948.22(2), to determine the elements of the crime of failure to pay child support, and we focus on the conduct that is prohibited therein.

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Smith’s unsuccessful prior challenge to the court support order bars him, under principles of claim preclusion, from challenging the validity of the order in the present non-support prosecution, ¶¶21-23.

The court invokes this principle as justification for rejection of Smith’s requested jury instruction on whether the issuing court exercised “competent jurisdiction.” Given the court’s holding that this matter is not an element,

State v. George Toland Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249
For Ziedonis: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Police, responding to a “loose animal” complaint became sufficiently alarmed by the possibility the dogs’ owner was in need of assistance that their warrantless entry was justified under the community caretaker doctrine:

¶27      Like in Ferguson, the police “utilized alternative methods of confirming whether anyone was in the [residence] before entering.” 244 Wis.

State v. George Toland Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249
For Ziedonis: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶14      One such exception is the community caretaker function, which arises when the actions of the police are “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” State v. Anderson, 142 Wis. 2d 162, 166, 417 N.W.2d 411 (Ct.

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80
For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: “(E)vidence acquired outside of the home after an in-home arrest in violation of Payton is not a product of the illegal governmental activity, if officers had probable cause to arrest developed apart from the illegal entry,” ¶23;

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199
For Kelley: Gregory Bates

Issue/Holding:

¶13      Kelley also argues that the search violated the scope of consent. He contends that an accelerant and phone handset could not have been found under his bed and therefore that place should not have been searched. We disagree. …

¶14      Here, the police were searching for a telephone handset and an accelerant.

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199
For Kelley: Gregory Bates

Issue/Holding:

¶12      Kelley contends that the police should have disclosed that they had reason to believe he had child pornography in his apartment. We are not persuaded that the detectives’ failure to disclose all their suspicions invalidated an otherwise validly obtained consent. This was not a case of deception or false pretext.

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57

Issue/Holding:

¶11. The trial court ruled and the County now argues that Terrance’s substitution request was untimely because it was not filed before “hearing of any preliminary contested matters” under Wis. Stat. § 801.58. Terrance argues the applicable statute is Wis. Stat. § 48.29, which allows a request “either before or during the plea hearing ….”

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57

Issue/Holding: Because TPR cases are generally a subset of custody cases; and because claim preclusion is available as a means of discouraging groundless requests for modification of custody, both claim and issue preclusion “may also be applied when the facts so require” in TPRs, ¶¶8-9. (The court remands for determination of whether issue preclusion is appropriate in this instance,

State v. Somkith Neuaone, 2005 WI App 124
For Neuaone: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: Where the sole basis for recusal is a claim that the judge was exposed to relevant sentencing information that he was entitled to hear, the very premise for the claim is flawed, ¶17.

¶16            Whether a judge was a “neutral and detached magistrate” is a question of constitutional fact which we review de novo and without deference to the trial court’s ruling.