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
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Failure to Offer Alternative Medical Testimony
State v. Evan Zimmerman, 2003 WI App 196, (AG) PFR filed 9/10/03 For Zimmerman: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to offer independent medical evidence that would have challenged the state’s expert as to the weapon used to kill the victim and that would have indicated that the murder was consistent with a […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Failure to Challenge Hypnotically Refreshed Testimony
State v. Evan Zimmerman, 2003 WI App 196, (AG) PFR filed 9/10/03 For Zimmerman: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to challenge a witness’s hypnotically refreshed testimony, as violating the guidelines of State v. Armstrong, 110 Wis. 2d 555, 329 N.W.2d 386 (1983), was deficient: ¶45. To begin, we are not persuaded by counsel’s […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Failure to Investigate Potential Defense – Guilty Plea
State v. Harold C. Pote, III, 2003 WI App 30 For Pote: John A. Pray, Remington Law Center Issue: Whether counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate a potential defense (inability to work for medical reasons) to one of two counts of nonsupport, where counsel complied with the defendant’s instruction to obtain a plea bargain involving […]
Defenses – Territorial Jurisdiction, § 939.03 – Instructions
State v. Shon D. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, PFR filed 2/3/03 For Brown: Robert T. Ruth Issue: Whether defendant was entitled to an instruction on territorial jurisdiction, § 939.03, where the offense was partially committed out of the state. Holding: ¶23. The question of whether or when a jury must be instructed on the […]
Defenses – Privilege, § 939.45 – CCW, § 941.23
State v. Munir A. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, on bypass For Hamdan: Chris J. Trebatoski Issue/Holding: Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25 (right to bear arms) does not establish a privilege defense to CCW, § 941.23, under § 939.45. As to subs. (1): “The existence of random, albeit frequent, criminal conduct in one’s vicinity does […]
Defenses – Statute of Limitations, § 939.74(1) – Complaint as Commencing Prosecution of Already-Incarcerated Defendant
State v. Kevin D. Jennings, 2003 WI 10, reversing 2002 WI App 16, 250 Wis. 2d 138, 640 N.W.2d 165 For Jennings: Steven M. Compton Issue/Holding: ¶1 … At issue is whether a criminal complaint that is filed against a defendant, who is already incarcerated, is sufficient to commence a prosecution. Based on the legislative history of […]
Defenses – Statute of Limitations, § 939.74(1) – “DNA Complaint” as Satisfying
State v. Bobby R. Dabney, 2003 WI App 108, PFR filed 5/23/03 For Dabney: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue/Holding: ¶21. Here, it is undisputed that the DNA profile complaint and warrant were issued three days before the statute of limitations expired. We have already concluded that the complaint and warrant in this case were sufficient to commence […]
Fines – Guidelines, Applicability
State v. Bruce J. Kuechler, 2003 WI App 245 For Kuechler: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: In sentencing for OWI, “it was not error for the court to seek guidance from the local guidelines” in determining the fine on an OWI sentence. ¶10, citing State v. Jorgensen, 2003 WI 105, ¶¶2, 27, __ Wis. 2d […]
Fines – Discretion to Impose
State v. Bruce J. Kuechler, 2003 WI App 245 For Kuechler: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶11. Second, Kuechler argues that “[e]ven if the size of the fine could be based exclusively on a guideline recommendation, the court here failed to give adequate reasons for choosing the more severe of two alternative guidelines.” […]
Fines – Ability to Pay – Determination
State v. Bruce J. Kuechler, 2003 WI App 245 For Kuechler: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13. Fourth, Kuechler contends that the trial court imposed the fine without first ascertaining his ability to pay. We agree. Because Kuechler timely raised the issue of ability to pay in his postconviction motion, the trial court […]
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.