On Point

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification
For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding:

¶184. We find no clear error in the circuit court’s determination that the third-party hearsay evidence in item 21(a) of Knapp’s offer of proof comes within the recent perception exception under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2),29 to the hearsay rule. Farrell’s inability to recall, 12 years after the fact,

State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶16. Weed argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting Michael’s statement regarding unloading the .357 because the statement did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2). Weed principally argues that Michael’s statement was inadmissible under the exception due to the lack of a proper foundation;

State v. Sherrie S. Tucker, 2003 WI 12, on certification
For Tucker: Paul LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶32. At the postconviction hearing, the circuit court upheld its prior ruling that McCray’s statements were not admissible as either statements against penal interest or under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. The circuit court noted that McCray’s statements attempted to exculpate Tucker without inculpating himself.

State v. Jeffrey B. Haines, 2003 WI 39, 2002 WI App 139
For Haines: Mark A. Huesmann, Sonja Davig Huesmann

Issue/Holding: An extension of the limitation period for prosecuting a crime, before the prior limitation period has expired, doesn’t violate the ex post facto clause of the Wisconsin Constitution.

¶15. In sum, the court of appeals succinctly and correctly reasoned that:

[T]he 1994 amendment to Wis.

State v. Patty E. Jorgensen, 2003 WI 105, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Jorgensen: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1: Sentencing guidelines for specified offenses (namely: §§ 346.63 (1) (b) or 346.63(5) [PAC offenses]) are within the authority granted by § 346.65(2m)(a). ¶¶16-18. However, the guidelines do not apply to an offense under § 346.63(1)(a) (OWI), therefore “it is inappropriate for a circuit court to simply apply the guidelines as the sole basis for its sentence in a § 346.63(1)(a) case.” ¶27.

State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: “¶31. In interpreting a constitutional provision, we first turn to the plain meaning of the amendment in context.” The court next examines the legislative history of the amendment, including drafting records of the legislative reference bureau and legislative council staff, ¶36 and id. n. 12. Further “analysis includes an examination of the practices in effect at the time the amendment was passed,

State ex rel Unnamed Persons v. State, 2003 WI 30
For Unnamed Persons: Franklyn M. Gimbel, et al.
Issue/Holding:

¶48. On balance, we conclude that Wisconsin Constitution, Article VII, Section 5(3), read together with the language in Wis. Stat. § 808.03(2) and in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.51(1) including “other person or body,” is sufficiently broad in scope to permit the court of appeals to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the actions of a judge presiding over a John Doe proceeding.

State v. Richard K. Fischer, 2003 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/15/03
For Fischer: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding: Where “the entire exchange consisted of Fischer asking Vento about the evidence against him, and Vento merely responding to Fischer’s questions, after which Fischer would implicate himself … Vento’s words and conduct in merely responding to Fischer’s questions regarding the evidence against him in the two robberies are not interrogation under the Innis test.”

State v. Richard K. Fischer, 2003 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/15/03
For Fischer: Mark S. Rosen

Issue/Holding:

¶19. Applying Davis and Jennings here, we conclude that Fischer’s statement to detectives that if the officers read him his rights he would not answer any questions and would request an attorney is sufficiently ambiguous or equivocal such that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that Fischer might be invoking the right to counsel.

State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove

Issue/Holding:

¶15. In a challenge to a Batson ruling, we review the trial court’s determination as to whether the State had a discriminatory intent as a finding of historical fact, which we shall not disturb unless clearly erroneous. State v. Gregory,