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.

“Shiffra” Material – Preliminary Showing for In Camera Inspection

State v. Johnny L. Green, 2002 WI 68, affirming unpublished court of appeals opinion For Green: Nicolas G. Griswold Issue/Holding: The court modifies the threshold showing required for an in camerainspection, in favor of “a slightly higher standard,” namely a “‘reasonable likelihood’ that the records will be necessary to a determination of guilt or innocence.”¶32. ¶34. Based on the […]

Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Deportation

State v. Sisakhone S. Douangmala, 2002 WI 62 For Douangmala: Robert R. Flatley Issue/Holding: ¶3 This case presents the following question: If a circuit court fails to give the deportation warning required by § 971.08(1)(c), when accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, is a defendant entitled to withdraw the plea later upon a showing that […]

Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Court Need Not Explain How State Must Prove Each Element

State v. John T. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, affirming unpublished decision For Trochinski: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the defendant met his burden of showing a prima facie case that he didn’t understand an element of the offense to which he pleaded guilty. Holding: ¶22. Wisconsin’s courts have been relying on Bangert since it was written in […]

Plea Bargains – Breach: By Defendant

State v. Scott G. Zuniga, 2002 WI App 233, PFR filed 9/13/02 For Zuniga: Chad G. Kerkman Issue/Holding: Because the defendant was warned by the judge at a bond-release hearing that if he engaged in misconduct the state would seek a longer sentence, “the parties effectively modified the plea agreement by making the State’s obligation conditional upon […]

Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Collateral & Direct Consequences — Presumptive Minimum Penalty

State v. Paul Delao Quiroz, 2002 WI App 52 For Quiroz: Chad G. Kerkman Issue:Whether defendant was entitled to withdraw his plea on the basis that he was unaware of the three-year presumptive minimum sentence on the weapon enhancer. Holding: ¶25 Both the complaint and the information contained the dangerous weapon enhancer and set forth […]

Witness – Impeachment — Pending Charges

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Holding: A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after the […]

Character — Extrinsic Proof, § 906.08(2)

State v. Troy D. Moore, 2002 WI App 245 For Moore: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Extrinsic evidence offered by the state solely to bolster a witness’s credibility, by showing that he had provided reliable information leading to the arrests of other drug dealers, violated § 906.08(2). ¶15. (Note: the court holds open the question […]

“Shiffra” Material – “Jensen” Testimony not Enough to Trigger

State v. Joseph F. Rizzo, 2002 WI 20, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 57, 241 Wis. 2d 241, 624 N.W.2d 854 For Rizzo: Franklyn M. Gimbel Issue: Whether the prosecution opened the door to otherwise privileged “Shiffra” evidence. Holding: ¶51. Before trial, the circuit court found that there was nothing relevant in D.F.’s treatment records that was […]

Qualifications — Gang Affiliation

State v. Tito J. Long, 2002 WI App 114, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Long: Ann T. Bowe Issue/Holding: Officer’s background, including “gang training” and investigations into numerous gang-related shootings, made him qualified to testify as to gang activities in city. ¶26.

Expert Witness – Comment On Truthfulness of Another Witness

State v. Carlos R. Delgado, 2002 WI App 38 For Delgado: Richard D. Martin, Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8. After reviewing these cases, we can discern some general rules: (1) an expert witness can offer opinion testimony only if it complies with Wis. Stat. § 907.02; (2) the testimony can include opinions […]

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.