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
Defenses – Coercion – § 939.46(1)
State v. Jeffrey A. Keeran, 2004 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/5/04 For Keeran: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: ¶5 … The coercion defense is limited to the “most severe form of inducement.” State v. Amundson, 69 Wis. 2d 554, 568, 230 N.W.2d 775 (1975). It requires a finding “under the objective-reasonable man test, with regard […]
Defenses – Statute of Limitations – Tolled by Plea Agreement
State v. Robert C. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, reversing 2003 WI App 151, 266 Wis. 2d 274, 667 N.W.2d 867 For Deilke: Kelly J. McKnight Issue/Holding: ¶28 The primary purpose of the statute of limitations is to protect the accused from criminal consequences for remote past actions. State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10, ¶15, 259 Wis. 2d 523, […]
Defenses – Claim Preclusion – Discovery Violation in Prior, Dismissed Case Involving Same Charge
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Claim preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew:: ¶26. We conclude that claim preclusion is not applicable for two independent reasons. […]
Defenses – Claim Preclusion, Generally
State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130 Issue/Holding: ¶13. Barksdale next argues that, even if the circuit court properly allowed the warden to raise claim preclusion as a defense, the defense must fail because all of the elements for claim preclusion are not present. The burden of proving claim preclusion […]
Defenses – Issue Preclusion – Discovery Violation in Prior, Dismissed Case Involving Same Charge
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Issue preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew: ¶22. In the second action, the facts were different in that Miller already […]
Defenses – Claim Preclusion – Discovery Violation in Prior, Dismissed Case Involving Same Charge
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel didn’t prevent admissibility of evidence excluded as discovery sanction in prior, dismissed but then reissued action, where judge who dismissed prior action after imposing sanction contemplated that the excluded evidence would not be barred in a […]
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. […]
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.