On Point

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds

Issue/Holding: A line of inquiry that suggests potential bias is relevant; however, the witness’s “real and appreciable apprehension” of self-incrimination trumps the right of confrontation. In such an instance it may be necessary to prevent the witness from testifying or to strike portions of his or her testimony.

State v. Brian B. Burke, 2002 WI App 291, PFR filed 11/29/02
For Burke: Robert H. Friebert

Issue/Holding:

¶4. First, as the trial court noted, we may not read our 1848 constitution using modern definitions and syntax. We are to examine:

(1) The [nineteenth century] plain meaning of the words in the context used;

(2) The historical analysis of the constitutional debates and of what practices were in existence in 1848,

State v. Peter G. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281, PFR filed 11/14/02
For Tkacz: Mark S. Rosen

Issue: Whether the prosecutor’s prior representation of the defendant in a civil forfeiture worked a disqualifying conflict of interest.

Holding: The standard for analyzing the existence of a conflict of interest (raised before trial) in serial representation is the “substantial relationship” test, ¶15 ( State v.

State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶23. McCleary further recognized that “[t]he sentence imposed in each case should call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement which is consistent with the protection of the public,

State v. Jacob E. Herman, 2002 WI App 28, PFR filed 1/16/02
For Herman, Jack E. Schairer, Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶1     Jacob Herman appeals from the sentencing portion of a judgment convicting him of possession of THC contrary to WIS. STAT. § 961.41(3g)(e).  The circuit court suspended Herman’s operating privilege for six months after concluding that it had no discretion to impose less than the minimum suspension mandated by WIS.

State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, PFR filed 4/23/02
For Chu: Andrew Shaw

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to retain an arson expert wasn’t deficient performance, where there was no indication the fire was anything other than arson, and defendant didn’t have sufficient funds to hire an expert. ¶¶50-52

State v. Anthony J. Randle, 2002 WI App 116, PFR filed 4/2/02
For Randle: Paul G. Bonneson

Issue: Whether territorial jurisdiction, acquired over the charged offense, may be lost over a lesser offense whose elements do not include any committed within the state.

Holding:

¶20 … Like criminal subject matter jurisdiction, once territorial jurisdiction attaches, it will continue until a final disposition of the case.

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:

¶84. To raise the issue of perfect self-defense, a defendant must meet a reasonable objective threshold. The trial evidence must show: (1) a reasonable belief in the existence of an unlawful interference;

State v. Trevor McKee, 2002 WI App 148, PFR filed 6/28/02
For McKee: Kenneth P. Casey, SPD, Jefferson Trial

Issue/Holding: Drafters of § 939.71 intended to incorporate general principles of law of double jeopardy as then (1953) existed – which includes the “necessary facts” exception (prosecution of greater not barred by conviction of lesser offense where all facts necessary to conviction of greater had yet to come into existence).

State v. Douglas J. Lasky, 2002 WI App 126, PFR filed 5/1
For Lasky: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The elements of federal bank robbery, 18 USC § 2113(d), and state armed robbery, § 943.32(2), don’t exactly overlap, therefore conviction of former doesn’t bar prosecution of latter under § 939.71. ¶¶18-28.