On Point

State v. David C. Polashek, 2002 WI 74, affirming in part and reversing in part, State v. Polashek, 2001 WI App 130, 246 Wis. 2d

For Polashek: Nila Jean Robinson

Issue: Whether the state’s petition for leave to appeal a non-final order was timely, where the order was issued “nunc pro tunc” in reference to an earlier letter in which the court set forth its inclination to rule against the state.

State v. Joeval M. Jones, 2002 WI 53, ordering withdrawal of opinion in State v. Jones, 2002 WI App 29, 250 Wis. 2d 77, 640 N.W.2d 151
For Jones: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Under State v. Lee, 197 Wis. 2d 959, 542 N.W.2d 143 (1996), “the court of appeals may not refuse to dismiss an appeal when an appellant notifies the court of voluntary dismissal of the appeal pursuant to Wis.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion
For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold
Issue/Holding:

¶40. Green contends that the prosecutor, not the witness, violated the sequestration order by conversing with the witness during trial…. Green has not provided any support for the contention that a prosecutor violates a sequestration order by merely talking to his or her witnesses.

Calumet County DHS v. Randall H., 2002 WI 126, on certification

Issue/Holding: Where “the procedural history” and “the underlying facts” are not in dispute, “a determination of whether the facts meet the applicable legal standard” is reviewed de novo.

State v. Edward Terrell Jennings, 2002 WI 44, on certification
For Jennings: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶3. We conclude that when confronted with a direct conflict between a decision of this court and a later decision of the United States Supreme Court on a matter of federal law, the court of appeals may, but is not required to, certify the case to us pursuant to Wis.

State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, on certification
For Dennis H.: Ellen Henak, SPD Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the “fifth standard” for mental commitment, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e. (roughly: refusing treatment due to incapacity for making rational treatment decision), is constitutional.

Holding: The statute isn’t vague — the state must prove the various “elements” of this standard (which the court spells out and won’t be repeated here).

Dunn County v. Judy K., 2002 WI 87, on certification

Issue: Whether a county is required to find an fund an appropriate placement under § 55.06(9)(a).

Holding:

¶28. We therefore determine that in protective placements pursuant to § 55.06(9)(a), counties must make an affirmative showing of a good faith, reasonable effort to find an appropriate placement and to secure funding to pay for an appropriate placement.

State v. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2002 WI 78, affirming as modified, 2001 WI App 251, 248 Wis. 2d 237, 635 N.W.2d 787
For Sorenson: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue: Whether, given the constitutional protections afforded Ch. 980 respondents, issue preclusion applies so as to prevent Sorenson from attacking the reliability of his qualifying conviction with evidence that the complainant subsequently recanted.

Holding:

¶22.

State v. Adam S. Gonzales, 2002 WI 59, on certification
For Gonzales: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an amendment to the Wisconsin constitution takes effect upon vote of the electors, or only when the chair of the Elections Board certifies the statewide canvass of votes.

Holding: The legislature has authority under Article XII, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution to adopt reasonable election laws such as Wis. 

State v. Nathan T. Hall, 2002 WI App 108
For Hall: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School

Issue/Holding: Because the trial court failed to explain its reasoning, its sentence was an erroneous exercise of discretion. In particular, the trial court exceeded the PSI recommendation (107 years) by approximately 200 years, without explaining either the necessity for sentences so long “that Hall will never live long enough to serve them,”