On Point

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding:

¶43. This court has explained on at least one prior occasion that both the experience and special knowledge of police officers who are applying for search warrants are among the facts that the warrant-issuing court may consider. 

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89
For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding: The affidavit in support of search warrant established probable cause to believe that Multaler was guilty of homicide, ¶¶13-28: he was tied directly and circumstantially to the victims; his actions were consistent with those of a serial killer (he kept an album of photos ans newspaper articles of missing and murdered females;

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89
For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding: Multaler seeks suppression of pornographic images found by the police while executing a search warrant for evidence of serial homicides committed more than 20 years earlier – in other words, that the information was too stale to support probable cause.

State v. Bradley J. Vorburger, 2002 WI 105, reversing 2001 WI App 43
For Vorburger: David D. Cook

Issue1: Whether the detention of suspect Becker in a motel hallway, while the police sought and then executed a search warrant for a room, was unnecessarily prolonged so as to amount to an arrest (unsupported by probable cause), where Becker was detained over an hour,

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

Issue: Whether the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, § 941.23, is constitutional in light of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which creates a right to keep and bear arms.

Holding: Because the crime was committed before the effective date of Article I, Section 25 (November 30,

State v. David C. Polashek, 2002 WI 74, affirming in part and reversing in part, 2001 WI App 130
For Polashek: Nila J. Robinson

Issue: Whether § 48.981(7) is a strict liability offense.

Holding: Where the statute makes no reference to mental state — and none is made here — it is often deemed strict liability. Factors such as seriousness and nature of the offense and legislative history may lead the court to impose a scienter requirement.

State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9
For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan

Issue/Holding:

¶123. We conclude that evidence of a victim’s violent character and of the victim’s prior acts of violence of which a defendant has knowledge should be considered in determining whether a sufficient factual basis exists to raise a claim of self-defense.

State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue/Holding:

¶46. We must examine the entire sentencing proceeding to evaluate the prosecutor’s remarks. Upon reviewing the State’s comments in the context of the sentencing hearing, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the State stepped over the fine line between relaying information to the circuit court on the one hand and undercutting the plea agreement on the other hand.

State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue1: The terms of the plea agreement and the relevant state’s conduct are questions of fact, reviewed deferentially; whether that conduct amounts to a material and substantial breach is a question of law, reviewed independently. ¶4. The court clarifies, in the face of prior conflicting lower court opinions,

State v. Robert S. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, on certification
For Robinson: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The question of law raised on appeal is what is the appropriate remedy when an accused is convicted on the basis of a negotiated plea agreement and the counts later are determined to be multiplicitous, violating the accused’s state and federal constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy? ….

¶3.