On Point

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 are not admissible to impeach a witness because they are not ‘evidence that the witness has been convicted of a crime.’

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.

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 nature that the defendant would be unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means;

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 prosecutor offered a less favorable resolution because he had additional evidence and a stronger case,

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.)

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 issue by the trial evidence,

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) (where petitioner is being restrained); the trial court’s transfer mistakenly relied on § 801.50(4)(a) (where petitioner was convicted or sentenced,

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 to cross-examine on the instruments). ¶20. In Wisconsin, trial courts have a limited “gatekeeper”

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 conceded and the other-act isn’t admitted) waives the issue of admissibility:

¶5.

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.