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
Hearsay – Prior Consistent Statement, § 908.01(4)(a)2
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 […]
Discovery – Witness List Violation
State v. Ludwig Guzman, 2001 WI App 54, 241 Wis. 2d 310, 624 N.W.2d 717 For Guzman: Robert E. Haney Issue: Whether the trial court properly excluded a defense witness who had not been timely named as a witness. Holding: ¶22 The record supports the trial court’s discretionary decision to exclude Rosado’s testimony. Guzman was […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: Social Interest Exception, Particularized Guarantees of Trustworthiness
State v. Edward A. Murillo, 2001 WI App 11, 240 Wis. 2d 666, 623 N.W.2d 187, habeas relief granted, Edward A. Murillo v. Frank, 402 F3d 786 (7th Cir. 2005) For Murillo: Craig Albee Issue: Whether a statement implicating defendant in a homicide and made by his brother and fellow gang member while in police […]
Assessment of Pre-Existing Information not “Newly Discovered” — Sexually Violent Persons Proceeding
State v. Daniel Williams, 2001 WI App 155 For Williams: Adrienne M. Moore, SPD, Racine Trial Issue: Whether the grant of a petition for supervised release (§ 980.08) can be vacated on the basis of a periodic re-examination report (§ 980.07) which is a mere assessment of the same information utilized during the supervised release proceeding. […]
§ 904.01, Relevance – Demonstrative Evidence
State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, PFR filed For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a witness should have been permitted to demonstrate with a doll the force used to cause injuries to the child victim. Holding: The fact that the experts couldn’t agree on the exact cause of […]
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Sexual Assault — Distinct Intrusions
State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether distinct types of sexual assault (mouth-vagina and penis-vagina) necessarily support distinct counts. Holding: ¶59 There is another reason Koller’s second multiplicity challenge fails. This second claim is directed primarily at the relationship between Count 4 […]
Defenses – “Statutory Double Jeopardy” – Drug Offenses – § 961.45
State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 626 N.W.2d 195, on certification For Hansen: Pamela Pepper Issue: “¶8 … ‘Does Wis. Stat. § 961.45 bar prosecution for the state crime of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, where a defendant previously has been convicted, based on the same conduct, for the […]
SVP – Trial: Expert Witnesses – Psychologist: Licensure
State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a psychologist must be licensed in Wisconsin to provide expert opinion in a Ch. 980 proceeding. Holding: No: “the standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony in this case is the general one, […]
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised Release – Revocation – Uncharged Rule Violation – Right to Notice
State v. Keith Alan VanBronkhorst, 2001 WI App 190 For VanBronkhorst: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether revocation of supervised release from a ch. 980 commitment was properly based on an uncharged rule violation. Holding: ¶9 … “(P)rocedural due process protections afforded in probation or parole revocation proceedings apply to supervised release revocation […]
SVP – Postdisposition – Right to independent expert
State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811 For Thayer: Jane K. Smith Issue: Whether the commitment subject has a right to present an independent medical report at a petition for discharge probable cause hearing, § 980.09(2)(a). Holding: Although a Ch. 980 patient does have the right […]
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.