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
Contemporaneous Objection – Policies Advanced Via Motion In Limine
State v. Jonathan J. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App 74, PFR filed 3/22/02 For English-Lancaster: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether defendant waived an objection to the violation of an in limine order, by waiting until a recess to enter an objection. Holding: ¶17. When the State violated the stipulation and the court’s order […]
Guilty Plea Waiver Rule: Double Jeopardy Issue
State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, reversed on other grounds, 2003 WI 89 For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t waive a facially valid multiplicity claim. ¶13.The supreme court subsequently stated: “Because Davison’s multiplicity objection fails on the merits, we need not and do not decide whether, by […]
Motion in Limine as Preserving Failure to Object to Closing Argument
State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202 For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski Issue/Holding: Failure to object to portions of closing argument didn’t waive right to challenge them on appeal, where defendant obtained a “definitive pretrial ruling” which “served to preserve (his) position for appeal.” ¶25 n. 9.
Restitution – Discovery, § 973.20(14)(d)
State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166 For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Where restitution was for counseling expenses, Johnson failed to show good cause for discovery of her counseling records. ¶¶28-30.
Restitution — Limitations — Recharacterizing as Condition of Probation
State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166 For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Because record is clear that trial court ordered restitution, court of appeals refuses to recharacterize (and uphold) order as condition of probation: ¶25 As a final argument, the State contends that even if W.L.’s wages are not recoverable under WIS. STAT. § 973.20, the circuit court […]
Restitution — Limitations — Time Limit
State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166 For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth Issue: Whether delay of 18 months in setting restitution amount deprived court of jurisdiction to enter the restitution order. Holding: Statutory time limits for setting restitution are regulatory, not jurisdictional, and may be exceeded when there is a valid reason and no prejudice. […]
Restitution — Limitations — Time Limit
State v. Jeffrey Kenneth Krohn, 2002 WI App 96 Issue: Whether the remedy for a conceded violation in following statutory procedure, including time limit, in determining restitution amount is remand for a restitution hearing under proper procedure. Holding: ¶13 While we accept Krohn’s challenge to the circuit court’s restitution order, we reject his attempt to prevent the […]
Restitution – “Victim” — “Stepparent,” Wages, Lost Accompanying Victim to Court
State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166 For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Wages lost by a stepparent’s accompanying the victim to court aren’t subject to restitution; lost wages are limited to those persons identified in § 973.20(5)(b). ¶¶22-23. Issue/Holding: A stepparent is not victim for § 973.20(1r) restitution purposes, ¶¶17-19. (However, a stepparent may qualify as an […]
Restitution — Law Enforcement Collateral Expenses
State v. James N. Storlie, 2002 WI App 163 For Storlie: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the destruction of “stop sticks” caused by defendant’s flight from the police is properly subject to a restitution order. Holding: ¶10…. (T)he government is entitled to restitution for losses incurred when it is a victim as a direct […]
Failure to Object to Plea Bargain Breach
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: ¶27 … Here, Grindemann did object to the prosecutor’s mention of uncharged offenses at sentencing, but the objection was based on the lack of evidence ‘properly before the court,’ not on any claim that the State was violating […]
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.