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
OWI – Evidence – Intoximeter EC/IR – Approval of Instrument by DOT
State v. Larry N. Winsand, 2004 WI App 86, PFR filed 4/12/04 For Winsand: Ralph A. Kalal Issue: Whether results of an Intoximeter EC/IR breath test was inadmissible because approval of this testing instrument by the chief of the DOT chemical test section involved standards that should have been but were not promulgated as administrative rules under […]
OWI — Implied Consent, Driver’s Request for Additional Test, §§ 343.305(4) and (5)
State v. James A. Schmidt, 2004 WI App 235 For Schmidt: Daniel S. Diehn Issue: Whether § 343.305(5)(a) requires that the driver request an additional test after the police have administered the primary test and, if not, whether Schmidt’s pre-blood draw request for a breathalyzer was properly rejected. Holding: ¶11. Although Wis. Stat. § 343.305(4) and (5) use […]
OWI — Second or Subsequent Offense, Prior Conviction – Foreign Case Resulting in “Court Supervision”
State v. Arthur C. List, 2004 WI App 230, PFR filed 12/22/04 For List: Joseph L. Polito Issue: Whether an Illinois OWI charge resulting in court supervision is a “conviction” within the meaning of § 343.307(1)(d). Holding: ¶5. List contends that under Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) only OWI offenses that result in formal conviction as defined by the […]
OWI – Preliminary Breath Test, § 343.303 – Refusal, Support for Reasonable Suspicion for Blood Draw
State v. Christopher M. Repenshek, 2004 WI App 229, PFR filed 12/17/04 For Repenshek: Stephen E. Mays Issue/Holding: Refusal to submit to a PBT may support a conclusion of reasonable suspicion for a blood draw: ¶25. Key to understanding our analysis is understanding that Wis. Stat. § 343.303 does not contain a general prohibition on police requesting a PBT. […]
OWI — Implied Consent — Non-English Speaking Driver
State v. Ibrahim Begicevic, 2004 WI App 57 For Begicevic: Donna J. Kuchler Issue: Whether reading the “Informing the Accused” form in English to a non-English speaking driver was an unreasonable way of conveying required implied consent warnings. Holding: ¶21. Kennedy did not attempt to obtain an interpreter. When Kennedy read the Informing the Accused in […]
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Burglary (Intent to Steal) While Armed, § 943.10(2)(a) (1997-98) and Burglary (Intent to Steal) While Committing Battery, § 943.10(2)(d) (1997-98)
State v. Shawn A. Beasley, 2004 WI App 42, PFR filed 3/26/04 For Beasley: Robert Ruth Issue: Whether charges and convictions for burglary while armed (§ 943.10(2)(a)) and burglary while committing battery (§ 943.10(2)(d)) are multiplicitous. Holding: ¶5. We reject Beasley’s challenge for two reasons. First, the subsections of Wis. Stat. § 943.10(2) do not define penalty enhancers, they […]
Double Jeopardy – Prosecutorial Misconduct: Vindictiveness – Adding New Charges After Postconviction Relief
State v. Clyde Baily Williams, 2004 WI App 56, federal habeas denied, Williams v. Bartow, 481 F.3d 492 (7th Cir 2007) For Williams: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Issuing new charges for “a completely separate and distinct criminal episode” after the grant of appellate relief does not give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness: ¶45 […]
Double Jeopardy: “Manifest Necessity” for Mistrial Where “Counsel Aired Improper and Highly Prejudicial Evidence Before Jury”
State v. Clyde Baily Williams, 2004 WI App 56, federal habeas denied, Williams v. Bartow, 481 F.3d 492 (7th Cir 2007) For Williams: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶22. We begin by addressing Williams’ double jeopardy claim. He submits that the trial court failed to exercise “sound discretion” in declaring a mistrial after his counsel […]
Double Jeopardy – Remedy: Partial Acquittal on Multi-Count Trial
State v. Daniel Wyatt Henning, 2004 WI 89, reversing 2003 WI App 54, 261 Wis. 2d. 664, 660 N.W.2d 698 For Henning: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: “¶41. Thus, the critical question is this: When a jury, in a multicount trial, both convicts and acquits, and an appellate court then overturns the conviction or convictions, do […]
Due Process – Exculpatory Evidence – Deferred-Judgment Probationary Status, Prosecutorial Duty to Disclose, § 971.23(1)(f)
State v. Richard G. White, 2004 WI App 78, (AG’s) PFR filed 4/1/04 For White: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶23. Under Wis. Stat. § 971.23(1)(f), a prosecutor must, upon request, disclose to the defense “[t]he criminal record of a prosecution witness which is known to the district attorney.” A prosecutor, however, has an affirmative duty to make […]
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.