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 – Issue Preclusion – Defensive Use Against Non-Party to Prior Case
Michael S. Johnson v. Berge, 2003 WI App 51 Issue/Holding: Review of issue preclusion is governed by Paige K.B. v. Steven G.B., 226 Wis. 2d 210, 594 Wis. 2d 370 (1999). The record isn’t sufficient to review the issue. ¶¶13-14. For discussion on preclusive effect of state court suppression ruling on federal court dealing with same evidence, […]
OWI – Proof of Priors – Certified DOT Driving Transcript
State v. Kevin J. Van Riper, 2003 WI App 237 For Van Riper: Anthony L. O’Malley Issue/Holding: ¶13. Thus, the cumulative effect of Wideman and Spaeth is as follows: (1) the proof requirements of Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1), the repeater statute in the criminal code, do not apply in OWI prosecutions (Wideman); and (2) a DOT teletype is competent […]
OWI – Multiple Enhancers – §§ 346.65(2), 939.62
State v. Richard W. Delaney, 2003 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision For Delaney: Joseph R. Cincotta Issue/Holding: ¶1 … Specifically, Delaney asks this court to determine whether Wis. Stat. § 939.62 (1999-2000) was properly applied to his already enhanced OWI offense under Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(c), based on the existence of a past non-OWI offense, so as to enhance […]
OWI – Implied Consent Law – Alternative Chemical Test
State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47, PFR filed 3/5/03 For Keith: Christopher A. Mutschler Issue/Holding: ¶10 WISCONSIN STAT. § 343.305(5)(a) requires police to offer an alternative chemical test to persons who submit to a chemical test under § 343.305 and who request an alternative test. … ¶12 The record shows that after Keith’s arrest, while traveling […]
OWI – PBT – Probable Cause to Administer
State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25 For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: Authority to administer a preliminary breath test requires probable cause to believe a drunk driving law has been violated. ¶23. Probable cause existed here, given the driver’s (mild) odor of intoxicants; the “suspicious circumstance” of the collision (i.e., with a child […]
OWI – Refusal – Right to Counsel
State v. Richard L. Verkler, 2003 WI App 37 For Verkler: Christopher A. Mutschler Issue/Holding: ¶1. In State v. Reitter, 227 Wis. 2d 213, 217-18, 595 N.W. 2d 646 (1999), our supreme court held that law officers are under no affirmative duty to advise custodial defendants that the right to counsel does not apply to the […]
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Theft by Fraud, § 943.20(1)(d), Same Victim Over Period of Time
State v. Jesse H. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/24/03 For Swinson: Pamela Pepper Issue/Holding: Separate theft by fraud charges, § 943.20(1)(d), involving a scheme to defraud the same victim over a period of time, were not multiplicitous. Though identical in law, they weren’t identical in fact, because each charge involved a distinct false representation, […]
Double Jeopardy – Remedy: Multiplicity – Felony Murder, § 940.05
State v. Theodore J. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, PFR filed 1/21/03 For Krawczyk: John T. Wasielewski Issue: Whether vacating plea-bargain based conviction and (concurrent) sentence for multiplicitous charge was adequate remedy, as opposed to reinstating the not guilty pleas. Holding: ¶34. We see no reason to disturb the remedy the trial court granted for the […]
Enhancer – Pleading – Misstating Date of Prior Convictions by One Day
State v. Robert J. Stynes, 2003 WI 65, reversing unpublished opinion For Stynes: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the complaint’s misstatement (by one day) of the date of prior convictions in support of a repeater allegation deprived Stynes of adequate notice, contrary to § 973.12(1) and due process. Holding: ¶2. We conclude that the complaint […]
Enhancer — § 939.62(2m), Persistent Repeater — Validity — Due Process
State v. Donald R. Wield, 2003 WI App 179, PFR filed 8/28/03 For Wield: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The persistent repeater law, § 939.62(2m) is constitutional; State v. Radke, 2003 WI 7, 259 Wis. 2d 13, 657 N.W.2d 66, controls. ¶¶20-21.
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.