On Point

State v. Todd M. Jadowski, 2004 WI 68, on certification
For Jadowski: Richard Hahn

Issue: Whether a minor sexual assault complainant’s intentional misrepresentation of his or her age supports an affirmative defense to § 948.02(2) sexual assault.

Holding:

¶19. The defendant acknowledges that Wis. Stat. §§ 948.02(2), 939.23, and 939.43(2) prohibit an actor from raising mistake about the age of the minor as a defense to the charge of sexual assault.

State v. Kevin Harris, 2004 WI 64, affirming as modified 2003 WI App 144, 266 Wis. 2d 200, 667 N.W.2d 813
For Harris: Steven A. Koch

Issue/Holding:

¶34 We recognize that in the constitutional context, the Brady requirement of materiality is dependent upon whether the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial and that no trial took place here.

State v. Joseph J. Guerard, 2004 WI 85, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals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

Issue/Holding:

¶23. The central issue in this case is the extent of corroboration required under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(4) for statements tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused. We addressed this issue at length in Anderson,

Custodian of Records for Legislative Technology Services Bureau v. State, 2004 WI 65, reconsideration denied, 2004 WI 149

Issue/Holding:

¶11  Wahl contends that Wis. Stat. § 13.96, as it interacts with Wis. Stat. § 905.01, creates a statutory privilege that, while not expressly stated, is implicit in LTSB’s obligation to treat all information within its possession as confidential.  Therefore, as the legal custodian of the information stored by the LTSB,

State ex rel Ralph A. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58
For Kalal: Waring R. Fincke
Issue/Holding:

¶17 A “writ of supervision is not a substitute for an appeal.” State ex rel. Dressler v. Circuit Court for Racine County, 163 Wis. 2d 622, 630, 472 N.W.2d 532 (Ct. App. 1991). The decision whether to issue a supervisory writ “is controlled by equitable principles and,

State v. Dennis Thiel, 2004 WI App 225
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the court must appoint an examiner for the subject under § 980.08(3) when it has already appointed one under § 980.08(4).
Holding:

¶17. The parties agree that the language of Wis. Stat. § 980.08(3) requires the circuit court to appoint an examiner for the court, and we concur.

Kimberly S.S. v. Sebastian X.L., 2004 WI App 83

Issue: Whether § 48.415(4) requires proof that an underlying family court order denying physical placement contained the warnings required by § 48.356(2).

Holding:

¶7. The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4) requires proof that the notices in Wis. Stat. § 48.356(2) were provided only when the underlying order was issued in juvenile court.

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding: “Second, Arredondo claims that his trial attorney failed to impeach Garza’s testimony with false statements Garza made to the police. This claim fails on both the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Arredondo cannot show prejudice because Garza admitted on direct-examination that he lied to the police….,” ¶33.

Alphonso Hubanks v. Frank, 392 F. 3d 926 (04-1043, 12/22/04)
For Hubanks: Robert J. Dvorak

Issue/Holding:

Habeas relief is appropriate pursuant to § 2254(d)(1) if the state court identified the right legal principle as determined by the Supreme Court but unreasonably applied that principle to the facts of the case. The standard for proving an unreasonable application of federal law, however, is more demanding than for proving an erroneous application of that law.

State v. George Melvin Taylor, 2004 WI App 81, PFR filed 4/13/04
For Taylor: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18. Accordingly, we must now turn to the Batson challenge itself. Our supreme court has adopted the Batson principles and analysis. State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, ¶22, 262 Wis. 2d 747,