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
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. Jeremy K. Morse, 2005 WI App 223 For Morse: Amelia L. Bizarro Issue: Whether Morse was entitled to plea-withdrawal on the basis of claimed newly discovered evidence, in the form of taped jail conversations between inmates discussing his case, and certain police reports. Holding: The trial court’s findings that the tapes were inadmissible […]
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing – Procedure – Pleading Requirements – Sexual Assault
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2005 WI App 265, reversed, 2007 WI 74 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether Lackershire, an adult female convicted of sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal due to lack of adequate understanding of the elements. Holding: ¶8 Initially, we note that in […]
Compulsory School Attendance, § 118.15(5)(b)2
State v. Gwendolyn McGee, 2005 WI App 97 For McGee: Amelia L. Bizarro Issue/Holding: The disobedient-child defense to a compulsory-attendance charge is an affirmative defense issue to be presented to the fact-finder at trial for resolution (as opposed to disposition by pretrial motion).
§ 901.07, Completeness Doctrine — Triggered by Accusation Witness Engaged in “Systematic” Lying
State v. Tyrone Booker, 2005 WI App 182 For Booker: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination focusing on inconsistencies in statements of the alleged victim permitted the State to read her entire first statement to the jury under the completeness doctrine; State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997), followed: […]
§ 902.01(2), Judicial Notice — Generally
State v. Leonard A. Sarnowski, 2005 WI App 48 For Sarnowski: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13. Trial courts may take judicial notice in limited areas-“fact[s] generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court,” or “fact[s] capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – Generally – FSTs
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36 For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: ¶14. In Wisconsin, the general standard for admissibility is very low. Generally, evidence need only be relevant to be admissible. See Wis. Stat. § 904.02; State v. Eugenio, 219 Wis. 2d 391, 411, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998) (“All relevant evidence is […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – Field Sobriety Test
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36 For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: Field sobriety tests (alphabet and finger-to-nose tests; and heel-to-toe walk) “are observational tools, not litmus tests that scientifically correlate certain types or numbers of ‘clues’ to various blood alcohol concentrations,” ¶17. Thus, the officer’s observations of Wilkens’ performance isn’t treated […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – Gun Possession, on Charges of Drug Trafficking While Armed
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: On charges of drug trafficking while armed, possession of guns (along with flash suppressor and bulletproof vest) was admissible as relevant for purposes other than “bad character,” ¶¶35-39. (State v. Spraggin, 77 Wis. 2d 89, 252 N.W.2d 94 (1977) and […]
Plea Agreements — Judicial Participation
State v. Antoine T. Hunter, 2005 WI App 5 For Hunter: James R. Lucius Issue: Whether the trial court’s observation to defendant, following denial of an assertedly “dispositive” suppression motion, that acquittal was “unlikely,” but that “coming forward and admitting your guilt” would provide “the opportunity to get some credit,” amounted to judicial participation in […]
Plea Agreements — Partial Withdrawal Doesn’t Necessarily Work Repudiation of Entire Bargain
State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113 For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether Nelson’s successful attempt to withdraw three of five bargain-based guilty pleas had the effect of abrogating the entire agreement so as to require withdrawal of the other two pleas. Holding: ¶23 Finally, Nelson asserts that if he […]
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.