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
Witness – Impeachment – Deferred Prosecution Agreement
State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, PFR filed 4/23/02 For Chu: Andrew Shaw Issue: Whether defendant was denied his right to exculpatory evidence when the state failed to disclose that a prosecution witness had received favorable treatment in another case. Holding: ¶37. As the State notes, prosecutions that end in dismissal and ordinance violations […]
Witness – Impeachment — Gang Affiliation — Admissibility on Bias
State v. Tito J. Long, 2002 WI App 114, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Long: Ann T. Bowe Issue/Holding: Evidence of gang affiliation is admissible (if state shows that defendant in fact was affiliated) to show witness’ bias, per United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 52 (1984). ¶¶17-19.
Due Process – Exculpatory Evidence – Posttrial Destruction
State v. Jerry L. Parker, 2002 WI App 159, PFR filed 5/20/02 For Parker: William Christopher Rose Issue: Whether posttrial destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence (taped drug transaction) requires new trial. Holding: ¶14. A defendant’s due process rights are violated by the destruction of evidence (1) if the evidence destroyed is apparently exculpatory and of such a […]
Double Jeopardy – Prosecutorial Misconduct: Vindictiveness – More Onerous Plea Offer After Defendant Obtains Relief
State v. Peter G. Tkacz, 2002 WI App 281, PFR filed 11/14/02 For Tkacz: Mark S. Rosen Issue/Holding: Even assuming that the law of vindictive prosecution (presumption of vindictiveness attaches to less favorable prosecutorial action following successful appeal) applies to failure to re-offer same plea bargain following reversal of conviction, the facts would not support vindictiveness. The […]
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Harassment Injunction (§ 813.125(4)) Not Lesser Offense of Harassment (§ 947.013(1r))
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2002 WI App 105, PFR filed 5/10/02 For Sveum: Ian A.J. Pit Issue/Holding: Violation of harassment injunction isn’t lesser offense of harassment, each requiring proof of distinct element. ¶¶23-28. (Court stressing, in particular, that for harassment defendant need only be “subject” to injunction but not actually violate it. ¶25.)
Defenses – Imperfect Self-Defense – Jury Instructions
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: ¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed in […]
SVP – Habeas Challenge to Commitment – Venue
State ex rel Edwin C. West v. Bartow, 2002 WI App 42 For West: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue: Whether the court had discretion to order change of venue from Winnebago (county of current SVP confinement) to Milwaukee (county of commitment), on habeas challenge to the commitment. Holding: Venue was proper in Winnebago under § 801.50(4)(b) […]
SVP- Trial: Evidence — Actuarial Instruments
State v. Bernard G. Tainter, 2002 WI App 296, PFR filed 12/23/02 For Tainter: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The trial court properly exercised discretion in admitting into evidence actuarial instruments (by determining that they were of the type commonly relied on by experts to assess sex offender risk; and by allowing Tainter […]
Waiver of Objection: Stipulation
State v. Ronald J. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, PFR filed 1/2/02 For Frank: Jane K. Smith Issue: Whether defendant waived review of objection to admissibility of misconduct evidence by entering into a “Wallerman” stipulation. Holding: A stipulation under State v. Wallerman, 203 Wis. 2d 158, 552 N.W.2d 128 (Ct. App. 1996) (an element is […]
Defendant’s Presence at Postconviction Hearing
State v. Paul L. Polak, 2002 WI App 120, PFR filed 5/3/02 For Polak: Philip J. Brehm Issue/Holding: A defendant need not be produced for a postconviction hearing where there are no substantial issues of fact to resolve. ¶22.
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.