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
Expert Opinion – TPR Parent’s Ability to Meet Condition for Child’s Return
Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion For Shannon R.: Brian C. Findley, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert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: […]
Evidence – Hearsay – Co-Conspirator’s Statement, § 908.01(4)(b)5.
State v. Boon Savanh, 2005 WI App 245 For Savanh: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶32, n. 4: A statement made by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is not a hearsay “exception”; it expressly is not hearsay. Wis. Stat. § 908.01(4)(b)5. (2003-04). While hearsay “exemption” is a more appropriate term, statements made under this subsection […]
Confrontation – Hearsay – Impeachment as Exception to Crawford / § 908.06 – Admissibility of Hearsay Statement to Attack Credibility of Declarant
State v. Jermaine Smith, 2005 WI App 152, PFR filed For Smith: Glen B. Kulkoski Issue: Whether a co-actor’s in-custody pretrial statements were admissible as impeachment on rebuttal after the defense introduced a different hearsay statement by that declarant. Holding: ¶10 The State’s rebuttal was solely to impeach Nunn’s credibility under the provisions of Wis. […]
Videotaped Statements of Children, § 908.08 – Constitutionality
State v. Kevin D. James, 2005 WI App 188 For James: Terry W. Rose Issue/Holding: The mere fact that § 908.08 imposes a mandatory protocol (videotape admitted into evidence first; child called to testify afterward) violates neither confrontation, ¶¶10-14, nor separation-of-powers, ¶¶15-25, doctrines.This statutory procedure allows the State to introduce a child’s videotaped statement, with the […]
Authentication, § 909.01
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: Testimony of a court employee that she had examined a certified copy of a foreign court order and that the exhibit to be admitted into evidence was a copy of that order sufficiently authenticated […]
Rape-Shield, § 972.11 – Semen Swab Not Linked to Defendant
State v. Tyrone Booker, 2005 WI App 182 For Booker: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion under the rape-shield law, and denied effective cross-examination, by excluding evidence of semen swabs of the alleged sexual assault victim not linked to Booker, where the allegations against him involved touching not intercourse. Holding: ¶16 … […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Guilt: Flight
State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238 For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs Issue/Holding: Evidence of flight is not other-acts evidence but, rather, “an admission by conduct”; thus, evidence that Anderson fled the state after learning that the police had been contacted was admissible, ¶29, citing, State v. Earl L. Miller, […]
§ 940.22(2), Sexual Exploitation by Therapist – Clergy as “Therapist,” Jury Instructions
State v. William E. Draughon III, 2005 WI App 162, (AG’s) PFR filed For Draughton: Stephen L. Miller Issue/Holding: Draughon, a pastor, was concededly a “clergy” member within § 940.22(2); however, the instructions relieved the State of its burden of proof on the element of whether he performed “therapy” in this capacity, in that they […]
OWI, § 346.63(1)(am) – Elements, Proof of “Impairment” Not Necessary
State v. Joseph L. Smet, 2005 WI App 263 For Smet: Christopher A. Mutschler Issue/Holding: Proof of “impairment” is not a necessary element of § 346.63, ¶¶12-16. Section 346.63(1)(am) (driving under influence of detectable amount of THC, regardless of impairment) is constitutional as against police power, due process, and equal protection attack, ¶¶6.
Defenses – § 948.03(2)(b) (2001-02), Harm to Child – Defense of Parental Privilege, § 939.45(5)
State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115 For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas Issue/Holding: ¶30 While Wis. Stat. § 939.45(5) recognizes the right of a parent to inflict corporal punishment to correct or discipline a child, that right of parental discipline has its limits. Kimberly seems to suggest that the statute prohibits only force that […]
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.