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
Defenses – Issue Preclusion – “Offensive” Use – Sexually Violent Person Proceeding
State v. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2001 WI App 251, PFR filed For Sorenson: T. Christopher Kelly Issue1: Whether issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) may be used “offensively” by the state in a Ch. 980 trial to bar a respondent from presenting evidence that s/he didn’t commit the offense which underlies the qualifying conviction. Holding: ¶28 Accordingly, we […]
Defenses – Issue Preclusion
State v. Philip M. Canon, 2001 WI 11, 241 Wis. 2d 164, 622 N.W.2d 270, reversing State v. Canon, 230 Wis. 2d 512, 602 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1999) For Canon: Alan D. Eisenberg ¶1 The question presented in this case is whether the doctrine of issue preclusion bars the State from prosecuting a defendant under […]
Defenses – Issue Preclusion – Prior Litigation of Ultimate Fact
State v. Ludwig Guzman, 2001 WI App 54, 241 Wis. 2d 310, 624 N.W.2d 717 For Guzman: Robert E. Haney Issue: Whether a verdict of acquittal in the defendant’s prior trial estopped the prosecution from retrying the ultimate fact resolved by that acquittal. Holding: ¶7 ‘Under the collateral estoppel doctrine an issue of ultimate fact […]
OAR/OAS – Rescission of HTO Status
State v. Jeremy J. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 628 N.W.2d 759 For Hanson: James B. Connell Issue: Whether DOT rescission of a defendant’s HTO status under § 351.09 “relates back” to the date of the charged offense so as to nullify that HTO classification and render him or her ineligible for enhanced sentencing. Holding: ¶32. Given […]
OWI – Implied Consent: Warrantless Blood-Sample Analysis
State v. Paul J. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275 For VanLaarhoven: Michele Anne Tjader Issue: Whether a blood sample, properly obtained under the Implied Consent law, may be analyzed without a warrant. Holding: The Implied Consent law requires that all who apply for a driver’s license consent not only to provide a sample, but also a chemical […]
OWI – Implied Consent – Blood Draw after Rejecting Request for Breath test
State v. Robert W. Wodenjak, 2001 WI App 216, PFR filed 8/31/01 For Wodenjak: Rex Anderegg Issue: Whether administration of a blood test, following OWI arrest, was reasonable under the fourth amendment, where the police first rejected the driver’s request for a (less invasive) breath test. Holding: As long as the standard for warrantless blood draw established […]
OWI – Implied Consent Law – Warnings re: Consequences for Refusal
State v. William K. Nord, 2001 WI App 48, 241 Wis. 2d 387, 625 N.W.2d 302 For Nord: Timothy J. O’Brien Issue: Whether the implied consent statute, § 343.305(4) violates due process by providing misleading information regarding the consequences for taking or refusing the test. Holding: The warning that the motorist “will be subject to other penalties” […]
OWI – Graduated Penalty Structure
State v. Henry T. Skibinski, 2001 WI App 109, 244 Wis. 2d 229, 629 N.W.2d 12 For Skibinski: Karma S. Rodgers Issue: Whether a trial court can, after findings of guilt on second and third offense OWI, apply the increased penalties of OWI-3rd to both offenses at sentencing. Holding: For several reasons, the sentence for OWI-2nd was […]
OWI – Unauthorized Sentence – Probation without Mandatory Minimum Confinement for OWI 6th – Resentencing as remedy
State v. William P. Eckola, 2001 WI App 295 For Eckola: Gregory A. Parker Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion by placing Eckola on probation for OWI-6th without requiring confinement for at least the presumptive minimum mandated by § 346.65(2)(e). Holding: ¶15. When the circuit court, in its discretion, determines that a defendant will […]
Enhancer — Pleading — Untimely Allegation, But Pursuant to Plea Bargain
State v. Joel O. Peterson, 2001 WI App 220, PFR filed 9/21/01 For Peterson: William E. Schmaal Issue: Whether the charge may be amended to include a repeater allegation, otherwise untimely under § 973.12(1), if accomplished as part of a plea bargain. Holding: ¶24 … (A)llowing a defendant to agree to amend an information to add repeater allegations […]
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.