On Point

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 the injuries goes to weight, not admissibility, of the demonstration.

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 (mouth-to-vagina contact), on the one hand, and Counts 3 and 5 (penis-to-vagina intercourse),

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 federal crime of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute? Stated differently,

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, namely, whether it will be helpful to the trier of fact, so long as the expert is qualified by knowledge,

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 proceedings under ch. 980. “…¶15. Notice to comply with due process requirements must be given sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings so that a defendant will have a reasonable opportunity to prepare.

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 submit an independent medical report to the court, ¶¶6-13, Wis Stat..

State ex rel. Richard A. Ford (II) v. Holm, 2006 WI App 176, PFR filed 9/11/06; on appeal following remand in 2004 WI App 22 (“Ford I”)
For Ford: James R. Troupis
For Amicus: Joseph N. Ehmann, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Given circuit court findings “that Ford affirmatively elected not to pursue any issue that would result in the withdrawal of his plea and the possible reinstatement of a second sexual assault charge,” he is deemed to have knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to pursue a postconviction challenge to his guilty plea;

State v. Aaron Evans, 2000 WI App 178, 238 Wis.2d 411, 617 N.W.2d 220

For Evans: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in preventing a DNA expert from sitting at counsel table.

Holding: “|10 We are satisfied that, on this record, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Evans’s request that Friedman be exempted from the sequestration order.

State v. Dennis R. Thiel (I), 2000 WI 67, 235 Wis. 2d 823, 612 N.W.2d 94, on certification from court of appeals
For Thiel: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the ch. 980 respondent waived his objection to insufficient proof by absence of objection.

Holding: “(T)he subject of a commitment petition under ch. 980 is not required to voice an objection to the allegations contained in the petition….

State v. Patrick E. Richter, 2000 WI 58, 235 Wis. 2d 524, 612 N.W.2d 29, reversing 224 Wis. 2d 814, 592 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Richter: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the second of two competing orders granting a suppression motion superceded the first, so as to make the state’s notice of appeal timely.
Holding: Under the circumstances, the trial court clearly intended the second order to supercede the first and the notice of appeal was therefore timely.