On Point

State v. Joseph J. Guerard, 2004 WI 85, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Guerard: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: Failure to interview or subpoena an investigator to whom the defendant’s brother had confessed was deficient performance; the basis for this failure, that counsel “thought the confessions were hearsay and that York’s reports were the work product of the State Public Defender’s office,

State v. Todd M. Jadowski, 2004 WI 68, on certification
For Jadowski: Richard Hahn
Issue: Whether due process supports an affirmative defense to sexual assault of a minor, § 948.02(2), based on the minor’s intentional misrepresentation of his or her age.
Holding:

¶36. Upon reading Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2), we conclude that the statute is clear and precise. The prohibited conduct is engaging in sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16 years.

State v. Michael D. Jackson, 2004 WI 29, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Jackson: Joseph E. Schubert

Issue: Whether penalty enhancement of a TIS-I sentence, § 973.01(2) (1997-98), applies to the confinement portion alone, or to the total term of imprisonment (including extended supervision), of a bifurcated sentence.

Holding:

¶17. The key to understanding the applicability of penalty enhancers under TIS-I lies in Wis.

Amy Z. v. Jon T., 2004 WI 73
For Jon T.: Geoffrey Dowse

Issue/Holding:

¶20. Due process requires that the notice provided reasonably convey the information required for parties to prepare their defense and make their objections. Bachowski v. Salamone, 139 Wis. 2d 397, 412, 407 N.W.2d 533 (1987).

¶21. The guardian argues that Jon should have anticipated that all of the issues addressed in the guardianship petition would be addressed at the hearing.

Monroe Co. DHS v. Kelli B., 2004 WI 8, affirming 2003 WI App 88, 263 Wis. 2d 413, 662 N.W.2d 360
For Kelli B.: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶19 Kelli asserts that the statute, as applied to her, violates her constitutional right to substantive due process. This right emanates from the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In essence, it protects against governmental actions that are arbitrary and wrong “regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.” 

State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2004 WI 70, affirming 2003 WI App 168, 266 Wis. 2d 599, 669 N.W.2d 204
For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella
Amici: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL

Issue/Holding:

¶66. The final issue we consider is whether the circuit court erred in failing to permit McDowell new counsel.

State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2004 WI 70, affirming 2003 WI App 168; habeas relief denied, McDowell v. Kingston, 497 F.3d 757 (7th Cir 2007)
For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella
Amici: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray

Issue/Holding: (Given the significance of the holding, at-length quoting is required in regard to counsel’s performance obligations relative to a client whose testimony may be perjurious:)

¶2.

State v. Joshua O. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, affirming court of appeals’ unpublished decision
For Kyles: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶22 … The State’s principal position is two-fold: First, the State argues that an officer’s “subjective fear of the suspect” being searched, as the state poses the issue, is not a prerequisite to a valid frisk. Second, the State argues that this court should bar any questioning of an officer about his or her “subjective fear of the suspect”

State v. Obea S. Hayes, 2004 WI 80, affirming 2003 WI App 99, 264 Wis. 2d 377, 663 N.W.2d 351
For Hayes: Philip J. Brehm:

Issue/Holding:

¶64. We agree with the court of appeals that M.M.’s testimony did not follow a chronological order. A reasonable factfinder could, however, draw the inference that the defendant verbally threatened to have retaliatory sex with M.M.

State v. Daniel Wyatt Henning, 2004 WI 89
For Henning: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶39. In Wisconsin, bail jumping and the crime underlying a bail jumping charge are distinct and separate offenses for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. State ex rel. Jacobus v. State, 208 Wis. 2d 39, 53, 559 N.W.2d 900 (1997) (citing State v.