On Point

State v. Earl Steele, 2001 WI App 34, 241 Wis. 2d 269, 625 N.W.2d 595
For Steele: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue: Whether the colloquy on a guilty plea to burglary/intent-to-commit-felony must apprise the defendant of the specific felony.

Holding:

¶8                        The trial court chose to summarize WIS. STAT. § 943.10 during colloquy, in combination with questioning defense counsel.  Steele contends that this summary was inadequate,

State v. Tyren E. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For Black: Michael S. Holzman

Issue: Whether the trial court properly found a factual basis for the guilty plea, by relying solely on the criminal complaint, where extraneous information put one of the elements in doubt.

Holding:

¶14. In essence, Black urges us to overturn this rule and find that a circuit court cannot find a factual basis for a plea in the complaint alone.

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.

Holding:

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

State v. Jeremy J. Byrge, 2000 WI 101, 237 Wis. 2d 197, 614 N.W.2d 477, affirming as modified State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 594 N.W.2d 388
For Byrge: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court, before accepting a plea of guilty or no contest [to a crime punishable by life imprisonment], must inform a defendant that it possesses the authority to fix the parole eligibility date.”

State v. Anthony A. Parker, 2001 WI App 111

Issue: Whether transfer to an out-of-state prison is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.

Holding:

¶8. In addition, we agree with the State that transfer to an out-of-state prison is a collateral consequence of Parker’s plea of no contest….

¶9. We have held that collateral consequences include deportation, restitution, subsequent filing of a sexually violent person petition,

State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed
For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding:

¶31. The privilege against self-incrimination is guaranteed by art. I, § 8, of the Wisconsin Constitution and by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. State v. Adams, 221 Wis. 2d 1, 7, 584 N.W.2d 695 (Ct. App. 1998). The use of a defendant’s silence for impeachment purposes has been long decided.

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the prosecutor properly cross-examined an alibi witness as to what the defendant had told him about his prior offense.

Holding:

¶21. Further, even if the 1992 conviction could have been properly admitted, using this evidence on cross-examination was improper. Other acts evidence is admitted for a specific purpose.

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

Issue1: Whether testimony by a state’s expert amounted to “Jensen” testimony, i.e., expert opinion that the sexual assault complainant’s behavior was consistent with that of sexual assault victims in general.

Holding:

¶21.

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.”

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether the alleged victim’s entire testimony at prior proceedings was properly admitted into evidence, under prior consistent statement or rule of completeness rationales.

Holding:

¶25. The trial court admitted the entire prior testimony under two theories: (1) the testimony constituted prior consistent statements under Wis. Stat.