On Point

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 “any differently from his other subjective observations of Wilkens, i.e., his red and glassy eyes,

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 State v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis.

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 bargaining as banned by State v. Corey D. Williams,

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 is successful in withdrawing some of his pleas,

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 the charged offense of abuse of a child, § 948.03(2)(b), and also to disprove the defense of reasonable discipline.

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 a Class B felony, was admissible.

Holding:

¶20      We agree with Norwood that Wis.

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 same conclusion here. While the State did not correct itself with tremendous enthusiasm and zeal and while the trial court did not reflect upon the State’s “earnest”

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 agreed to recommend and defense counsel fails to object,

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 we conclude that there is no privilege here.

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, did not amount to impermissible comment on silence. “Rather, the prosecutor was highlighting the inconsistency between what Ewing did say and what his alibi witnesses testified to at trial.” ¶¶10-13.