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.
SVP – Trial: Evidence – Hearsay: Letters from DSM-IV Committee
State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes
Issue: Whether letters from DSM-IV committee members, regarding the impact of an assault on a diagnosis of pedophilia, were properly admitted.
Holding: A basis for an expert opinion, otherwise hearsay, is admissible if of “a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field…. The letters relied on here,
SVP – Repealed Statute as Predicate Offense
State v. Frederick L. Pharm, 2000 WI App 167, 238 Wis. 2d 97, 617 N.W.2d 163
For Pharm: Jack E. Schairer
Issue: Whether conviction under the since-repealed statute of indecent behavior with a child may serve as a predicate offense for a Ch. 980 commitment.
Holding: “(T)he legislature clearly intended to include, within the definition of ‘sexually violent offense,’ the conduct prohibited under a previous version of a statute enumerated in Wis.
Sentencing – Review – Inaccurate Information – Prosecutorial Allocution
State v. Dione Wendell Haywood, 2009 WI App 178
For Haywood: Robert E. Haney
Issue/Holding: Asserted prosecutorial misconduct, in the form of misleading statements during allocution, is tested under State v. Wolff, 171 Wis. 2d 161, 167, 491 N.W.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 1992) (whether “what the prosecutor does has ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process’”),
SVP – Sufficiency of Evidence – Volitional Capacity
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Although evidence of volitional impairment is required and in this bench trial the trial court erred in commenting to the contrary, ¶35, the court in fact found the existence of such evidence, ¶36.
SVP – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the 980 subject suffered from a qualifying mental disorder, given that the experts split on the issue.
Holding:
¶15 Pletz argues that the two psychologists who testified on his behalf offered more credible testimony,
SVP – Appeal – Waiver of Issue of Prosecutor’s Authority
State v. Frederick L. Pharm, 2000 WI App 167, 238 Wis. 2d 97, 617 N.W.2d 163
For Pharm: Jack E. Schairer
Issue: Whether Pharm waived objection to the prosecutor’s authorization to file a Ch. 980 petition.
Holding: Pharm’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s filing the petition without going through the Department of Justice under §§ 990.015 and 980.02(1) waived the issue, ¶9.
Guardianship/Protective Placement: Waiver of Conflict of Interest by Person Adjudicated Incompetent
Guerrero v. Cavey, 2000 WI App 203, 238 Wis.2d 449, 617 N.W.2d 849
Issue: Whether a person adjudicated incompetent may waive her attorney’s conflict of interest.
Holding: Because the client’s understanding of the attorney’s potentially divided loyalty is a necessary component of waiver of a conflict, and because no claim is made that the circuit court erred in finding the mother to be incompetent, she was,
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Guardianship — Dual Representation, Competing Interests
Guerrero v. Cavey, 2000 WI App 203, 238 Wis.2d 449, 617 N.W.2d 849
Issue: Whether an attorney’s dual representation of the subject of a guardianship and her son worked a conflict of interest.
Holding: The two clients had competing interests, including the son’s desire to buy his mother’s house at below market value, and the attorney therefore had a conflict of interest, ¶¶13-17.
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Prior Representation by Prosecutor: “Reverse Representation”
State v. David Kalk, 2000 WI App 62, 234 Wis. 2d 98, 608 N.W.2d 428
For Kalk: John A. Pray, UW Law School
Issue: Whether the defendant satisfied his burden of showing an actual conflict of interest stemming from his prior representation by the prosecutor on an unrelated charge.
Holding: Given the trial court’s findings of historical fact, defendant did not show that his prosecution was influenced by the prior representation.Analysis: Kalk’s prosecutor had previously represented him on an unrelated charge.
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – failure to investigate, based on defendant’s version
State v. David S. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, 237 Wis.2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126
For Leighton: Daniel Snyder
Issue: Whether defendant’s first counsel was ineffective for failing to file formal discovery demand and investigate various matters.
Holding: Because counsel withdrew before the prelim, and because there is no right to discovery before prelim, counsel couldn’t have been deficient for failing to file a demand, ¶37; because defendant failed to show what information counsel might have uncovered,
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.