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.
Search & Seizure – Applicability of Exclusionary Rule — Violation of Nonconstitutional Right –Violation of Statute, § 175.40(6)
State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63
For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta
Issue/Holding: Any violation of § 175.40(6), which regulates the arrest power of an officer operating outside territorial jurisdiction would not support suppression as a remedy:
¶30. Assuming arguendo that the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department had not adopted the written policies required by Wis. Stat. § 175.40(6)(d), we agree with the State that suppression is not a remedy for such a statutory transgression.
(State) Habeas – Enlargement of Direct Appeal Deadline Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel — Habeas As Exclusive Mechanism
State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Evans: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding: The petition for writ of habeas corpus procedure mandated by State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 522, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992) is the exclusive mechanism for seeking reinstatement of direct appeal deadlines lost on account of ineffective assistance of counsel;
Federal Habeas Procedure – Appellate: Non-Final Order (Dismissal with Leave to Re-file After Exhausting State Remedies)
Alan O. Moore, Sr. v. Mote, 368 F. 3d 754 (7th Cir. No. 03-3213, 5/17/04)
Issue/Holding: Dismissal with leave to refile following exhaustion of state court remedies doesn’t support a notice of appeal:
Generally, this court has jurisdiction only to review final judgments, 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s order dismissing the case without prejudice is not final because it explicitly contemplates the court’s continuing involvement in the case ….This court has held that there are “special circumstances” under which the dismissal of a case without prejudice may constitute a final appealable order.
Guilty Pleas – Post-Sentencing Plea Withdrawal: Procedure, Generally
State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, affirming 2002 WI App 293, 259 Wis. 2d. 455, 655 N.W.2d 131
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether, in moving to withdraw guilty plea on the basis of failure to inform the defendant that the trial court wasn’t bound by the plea agreement, the defendant need only assert lack of such understanding;
Intrastate Detainer, § 971.11 — Self-Effectuating / Personal Nature of Request
State v. Michael D. Lewis, 2004 WI App 211
For Lewis: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding:
¶10. The State does not dispute that it failed to bring Lewis’s case to trial within 120 days after the district attorney’s office received his request for prompt disposition of his case. …
¶11. The statute mandates that when the case is not brought to trial within 120 days,
§ 903.03, Presumed Delivery of Mail
State v. Henry W. Aufderhaar, 2004 WI App 208, PFR filed 11/16/04
For Aufderhaar: J. Paul Neumeier Jr.; Raymond E. Krek
Issue/Holding:
¶27 Here, it is true that the delinquency petition, though filed in court, was never in Aufderhaar’s hands before the waiver hearing took place. However, at the time of the hearing, Aufderhaar is presumed to have had notice that such a petition existed because the notice of waiver hearing was sent to his correct Montana address before the waiver hearing and that notice was never returned as undeliverable.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Consciousness of Innocence — Polygraph Test Offer, Made by Counsel
State v. Gregg A. Pfaff, 2004 WI App 31
For Pfaff: Rex Anderegg
Issue/Holding:
¶26. While a polygraph test result is inadmissible in Wisconsin, see State v. Dean, 103 Wis. 2d 228, 279, 307 N.W.2d 628 (1981), an offer to take a polygraph test is relevant to an assessment of the offeror’s credibility and may be admissible for that purpose. State v.
§ 904.03, Balancing Test – Richard A.P. Evidence
State v. Steven G. Walters, 2004 WI 18, reversing 2003 WI App 24
For Walters: David A. Danz
Issue/Holding:
¶16. … The term “Richard A.P. evidence” comes from a decision of the court of appeals in which a defendant accused of molesting a child sought to introduce character evidence through the testimony of a psychologist. State v.
§ 904.03, Unfair Prejudice – Autopsy Photo
State v. Gregg A. Pfaff, 2004 WI App 31
For Pfaff: Rex Anderegg
Issue/Holding:
¶34. Whether photographs are to be admitted is a matter within the trial court’s discretion. State v. Lindvig, 205 Wis. 2d 100, 108, 555 N.W.2d 197 (Ct. App. 1996). We will not disturb the court’s discretionary decision “unless it is wholly unreasonable or the only purpose of the photographs is to inflame and prejudice the jury.”
§ 904.04, Construction — General
State v. Gregory J. Franklin, 2004 WI 38, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Franklin: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶11. Wisconsin Stat. § 904.04(2) evidence may be offered in a criminal trial or a civil suit. State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 783, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998) and Daniel B. Blinka, Evidence of Character,
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.