On Point

Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207, PFR filed 10/23/03

Issue/Holding:

¶24. Upon the filing of a motion seeking remedial sanctions for contempt, an on-the-record hearing must be held “for due process purposes.” See Mercury Records Prods., Inc. v. Economic Consultants, Inc., 91 Wis. 2d 482, 504, 283 N.W.2d 613 (Ct. App. 1979). The evidence adduced at the hearing must support resultant findings of fact that the contemnor engaged in “intentional …

Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46

Issue/Holding: Banishment from victims’ county, under harassment injunction, § 813.125, upheld:

¶18 Thus, banishment is not a per se constitutional violation. As the previous discussion demonstrates, there is no exact formula for determining whether a geographic restriction is narrowly tailored. Each case must be analyzed on its own facts, circumstances and total atmosphere to determine whether the geographic restriction is narrowly drawn.

State v. Andrew S. Miller, 2003 WI App 74, PFR filed 4/11/03
For Miller: Brian C. Findley, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶12. This court has found that rights under the Detainer Act “are statutory in nature and may be waived by a defendant’s request for a procedure inconsistent with its provisions.” Brown, 118 Wis. 2d at 386. By firing his lawyer six days before the scheduled start of trial and twenty-eight days before the expiration of the time period,

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: While not bound by the Judicial Council Committee Note, the court of appeals nonetheless “view(s) it as significant authority in construing the rule.” ¶40. (See also id., n. 16: “In promulgating the rules of evidence, the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that it was not adopting either the commentary of the Federal Advisory Committee or the Wisconsin Judicial Council Committee,

State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: “A definitive pretrial ruling preserves an objection to the admissibility of evidence without the need for an objection at trial, as long as the facts and law presented to the court in the pretrial motion are the same as those that arise at trial.” ¶27. The trial court’s “definitive” rulings on Kutz’s pretrial hearsay objections preserved the issue of admissibility of those statements,

State v. James S. Riedel, 2003 WI App 18, PFR filed 1/27/03
For Riedel: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding:

¶8. At the outset, we reject the State’s threshold argument that Riedel is precluded from challenging the trial court’s suppression ruling based on Riedel’s conviction on the OWI charge and the dismissal of the PAC charge. The State reasons that Riedel’s appeal lacks a justiciable controversy because he has failed to argue that he would not have pled to the OWI charge if the trial court had granted the suppression motion or that the OWI evidence would have been insufficient absent the blood test results.

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

Issue/Holding: Evidence of investor losses is relevant to a charge of racketeering, § 946.83. ¶37.

State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals
For Hunt: Rex R. Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶72. In determining whether a piece of evidence is unfairly prejudicial, we have held that cautionary instructions help to limit any unfair prejudice that might otherwise result. Plymesser, 172 Wis. 2d at 596-97.¶73. Contrary to Hunt’s argument and the court of appeals’

State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals
For Hunt: Rex R. Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶43. The State maintains that the court of appeals erred in interpreting Sullivan. We agree. Sullivan does not state, as the decision of the court of appeals suggests, that in situations where the circuit court fails to set forth a detailed analysis for admitting or excluding other-acts evidence,

State v. Theodore J. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, PFR filed 1/21/03
For Krawczyk: John T. Wasielewski

Issue/Holding:

¶29. We conclude that Krawczyk’s plea to both felony murder and the underlying armed robbery, the latter conviction having been set aside, does not provide a basis for withdrawal of his plea to felony murder. First and foremost, the record is devoid of any evidence establishing that Krawczyk would not have pled guilty to felony murder (and to the other two offenses of which he remains convicted) had he known of the multiplicity of the felony murder and armed robbery charges.