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
§ 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 […]
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) – Intent — Child Abuse
State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115 For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas Issue/Holding: Other acts evidence that on two prior occasions the defendant, while disciplining her child, had struck the child with sufficient force to cause injury and require government intervention, was relevant and admissible under § 904.04 to prove the intent element of […]
§ 904.10, Defendant’s Unsolicited Statement to Court Asking for Care by “Mental Doctors”
State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218 For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams Issue: Whether defendant’s letter to the trial court, stating that he did not want the case to go to trial; that he wished to be placed in a facility in the care of “mental doctors”; and that the court sentence him for […]
Guilty Pleas – Plea Bargains – Breach: By Prosecutor: Immediate Correction of Breach
State v. Richard L. Bowers, 2005 WI App 72 For Bowers: George Tauscheck Issue/Holding: The State’s immediate correction of recommended disposition in excess of the plea bargain’s limit rendered the breach insubstantial and therefore not actionable; State v. Knox, 213 Wis. 2d 318, 321, 570 N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1997), followed: ¶12. We reach the […]
Plea Bargains — Breach: By Defendant – Failure to Appear at Sentencing – Renegotiation: Defendant’s Assent, not Knowledge of Specific Performance, Required
State v. Brad S. Miller, 2005 WI App 114 For Miller: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8 In State v. Sprang, 2004 WI App 121, 274 Wis. 2d 784, 683 N.W.2d 522, we explained that when a prosecutor breaches a plea agreement by arguing for a harsher sentence than the one the prosecutor […]
Privilege – Patient-Counselor, § 905.04(4) (2001-02) – Extinguished by Mandatory Reporting Obligations
State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110, affirming as modified 2004 WI App 51 For Intervenor Dawn R.: Dwight D. Darrow Issue/Holding: Revelation of a child’s statement to a counselor, discussing whether or not she had been sexually abused, may not be resisted on ground of privilege: ¶7 We do not address these issues regarding waiver because […]
Privilege – Comment on Silence, Permissible Impeachment, § 905.13
State v. Maurice S. Ewing, 2005 WI App 206 For Ewing: David R. Karpe Issue/Holding: Where the defendant waived his rights and gave pre-trial statements to the police and presented an alibi defense at trial, prosecutorial evidence that the defendant had not revealed the alibi during those statements, and exploitation of that omission during closing argument, […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences – TIS Confinement Time, Set by Court
State v. Richard C. Plank, 2005 WI App 109 For Plank: Jamy Richard Johansen Issue: Whether a voluntary guilty plea to a TIS offense requires knowledge of ineligibility for parole or good-time credit. Holding: ¶15 Plank contends that because Byrge holds that parole eligibility is a direct consequence, the lack of parole eligibility under truth-in-sentencing […]
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.