On Point

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.

State v. Stephen T., 2002 WI App 2
For Stephen T.: Raymond M. Dall’Osto

Issue: Whether appeal of a juvenile delinquency adjudication is rendered moot by expiration of its dispositional order.

Holding: No, at least in this instance: certain facets of the order (DNA sample; sex offender registration) survive, and appellate review will therefore have a practical effect. ¶11. (The court doesn’t say whether its mootness holding is limited to offenses that incur these particular consequences.) Moreover,

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed

For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding.

Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … she was qualified to give her opinion on the ultimate issue.” ¶29.

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed

For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an expert witness’s testimony should have been struck retrospectively when it became known, after the proceeding had concluded, that he had lied about his credentials and background, and had committed misconduct, causing him to be fired.

Holding: “¶33. We cannot conclude that the circuit court’s refusal to strike Thomalla’s testimony was improper.

State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227

For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in questioning prospective jurors outside the presence of defendant and counsel, on “hardship and infirmity requests” not to serve.

Holding: Questioning jurors about undue hardships “does not implicate the purposes of voir dire that are the premise for a defendant’s constitutional entitlement to be present with counsel” (namely,