On Point

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.

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion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

Issue/Holding: Viability of State v. Shiffra, 175 Wis. 2d 600, 499 N.W.2d 719 (Ct. App. 1993) upheld, against claim by state that it should be overturned. ¶22 n. 4. State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391,

State v. Bradley Alan St. George, 2002 WI 50, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For St. George: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “Was the circuit court’s exclusion of the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness an erroneous exercise of discretion, or alternatively, a deprivation of the defendant’s constitutional right to present evidence, as the defendant asserted?” ¶2

Holding: The trial court’s rejection of the expert was based on his lack of extensive experience in the area;

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, reconsideration denied 2002 WI 118; on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a crime lab report is admissible under the business records exception, § 908.03(6).

Holding:

¶48. There can be little question that when state crime labs generate reports like those at issue here,

State v. Richard N. Konkol, 2002 WI App 174
For Konkol: Brian Hough

Issue/Holding: The proper test for admissibility of rebuttal evidence isn’t whether it could have been admitted in, or would have been useful to, the state’s case-in-chief, but whether it meets new facts put in by the defendant. ¶¶18-19.

¶18      Thus, the only other basis for barring the witness would be that she was not a bona fide rebuttal witness.