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
Due Process – Defendant’s Right to Testify – Personal Waiver Required
State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: A defendant has a “fundamental” constitutional right to testify on his or her own behalf. ¶39. ¶43. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a criminal defendant is waiving his or her right to testify, a circuit court should […]
Due Process – Defendant’s Right to Testify, as Affected by Intent to Commit Perjury – Counsel’s Role
State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2003 WI App 168, affirmed, 2004 WI 70, ¶¶42-47 For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella Amici: Keith A. Findley, John T. Savee, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL Issue/Holding: The defendant’s right to testify does not include a right to testify falsely, Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986): ¶37. From Nix, we derive five principles that […]
Enhancers — Collateral Attack on, at Sentencing
State v. Thomas A. Drexler, 2003 WI App 169, PFR filed 8/1/03 For Drexler: Ralph A. Kalal Issue/Holding: In support of a collateral attack on a prior OWI conviction used to enhance a current OWI prosecution, Drexler submitted an affidavit asserting that the trial court had not advised him of his right to counsel: although this was […]
Enhancers — Multiple Enhancers — §§ 939.62(1)(b), 961.48(2)
State v. Paul R. Maxey, 2003 WI App 94 For Maxey: Douglas I. Henderson Issue/Holding: A sentence may be enhanced by both the general repeater provision of § 939.62(1)(b) (1999-2000) and § the specific repeat drug offender provision of § 961.48(2) (1999-2000), given the rationale of State v. Richard W. Delaney, 2003 WI 9: ¶14. In summary, […]
Suppression Hearing – PBT Result – Expert Not Necessary
State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25 For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: Expert testimony is not a prerequisite for admission of a PBT result at a suppression hearing. ¶29.
Warrants — Probable Cause — Child Pornography
State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03 For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause to believe that the defendant currently possessed child pornography. Holding: ¶17. “[E]very probable cause determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, looking at the totality of […]
Warrants – Scope – Particularity Requirement – Photographs
State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03 For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The search warrant satisfied the particularity requirement by authorizing seizure of the following: “[p]hotographs, movies, slides, videotape, negatives, and/or undeveloped film which would tend to identify … any other juvenile”; and “[m]agazines, books, movies, and photographs […]
Separation of Powers – Shared Power Regarding Judicial Continuances
State v. Charles Chvala, 2003 WI App 257, affirmed, 2005 WI 30 For Chvala: Lawton & Cates Issue/Holding: ¶1. The criminal complaint in this action charges Charles Chvala, a senator in the Wisconsin Legislature, with extortion, misconduct in public office, and violations of campaign finance statutes. The issue on appeal is whether, as Chvala contends, Wis. Stat. […]
Expectation of Privacy — Public Rest Room Stall
State v. Juan M. Orta, 2003 WI App 93 For Orta: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶2 … (A)n individual who occupies a public restroom stall does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he or she occupies it with another individual, leaves the door slightly ajar and unlatched, and evinces no […]
Expectation of Privacy — Threshold of Residence
State v. James L. Larson, 2003 WI App 150 For Larson: Rex Anderegg Issue/Holding: A police officer’s stepping into the threshold of an apartment, preventing the occupant from closing the door, amounted to an “entry,” thereby triggering the fourth amendment warrant requirement. ¶¶10-11, following State v. Johnson, 177 Wis. 2d 224, 227, 501 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. […]
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.