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
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 […]
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Direct and Collateral Consequences – Maximum Punishment
State v. Kenneth V. Harden, 2005 WI App 252 For Harden: Ralph Sczygelski Issue/Holding: Misinformation with respect to the maximum punishment (defendant was told the maximum was 19 years, 6 months when the correct maximum was 16 years) necessarily renders the guilty plea invalid, without regard to whether the misinformation affected the decision to plead […]
“Maday” Examination of Complainant Where State’s Expert Never Conducted Exam
State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238 For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs Issue/Holding: Where the State’s expert witness never interviewed the victim (nor viewed a videotape of the victim’s statement), the defendant wasn’t entitled to a psychological examination of the victim pursuant to State v. Maday, 179 Wis. 2d 346, […]
Controlled Substance – Sufficiency of Evidence, Proof of Substance — Presumptive and Confirmatory Testing
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: Proof of the controlled substance is sufficient where a “presumptive” test is followed by a “confirmatory” one (State v. Dye, 215 Wis. 2d 281, 572 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1997), followed), with the PDR being used to establish the presumption: ¶42 Here, the […]
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 […]
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.