On Point

State v. George R. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199, affirming State v. Bollig, 224 Wis.2d 621, 593 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bollig: Thomas E. Knothe, Collins, Quillin & Knothe, Ltd.

Issue: Whether a guilty plea colloquy involving a crime that would require sex offender registration under Wis. Stat. § 301.45 must inform the defendant of that requirement for the plea to be voluntary.

State v. Stuart D. Yates, 2000 WI App 224, 239 Wis.2d 17, 619 N.W.2d 132
For Yates: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the presumptive MR date of § 302.11(1g)(am) 1997-98 is a direct or collateral consequence of a guilty plea.

Holding: A court is required to advise a defendant only of direct consequences — which have definite, immediate, and largely automatic impact on range of punishment —

State v. Dennis E. Scott, 2000 WI App 51, 234 Wis. 2d 129, 608 N.W.2d 753
For Scott: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether a defense witness was properly impeached with evidence that he was serving life in prison with no prospect for parole.

Holding: The witness’s attempt to admit the crimes and exonerate the defendant would have misled the jury absent revelation of his functional immunity stemming from his parole status: “where no practical,

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2000 WI App 5, 232 Wis.2d 138, 606 N.W.2d 196
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the state sufficiently showed that the child understood that false statements were punishable so as to justify admissibility of her videotaped interview under § 908.08(3).

Holding: The admissibility statute, § 908.08(3), was satisfied, even though compliance wasn’t express.

Defendant argues that the state failed to establish a threshold requirement imposed for admissibility of a videotaped statement by a child under § 908.08(3),

State v. Edward A. Hammer, 2000 WI 92, 236 Wis. 2d 686, 613 N.W.2d 629, on certification, habeas denied, Hammer v. Karlen, 342 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 2003)
For Hammer: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: The rape shield statute will be overcome if the five-part test of State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 656, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990) is met.

State v. Peter Ballos, 230 Wis.2d 495, 602 N.W.2d 117 (Ct. App. 1999).

For Ballos: Robert N. Myeroff.

Issue: Whether the trial court should have ordered production of the state’s witness’s mental health records, for in camera inspection, upon showing that the witness had been hospitalized for depression and was obsessed with bomb-building, and where the theory of defense was that the witness rather than defendant committed the crime.

State v. Larry D. Harris, 229 Wis.2d 832, 601 N.W.2d 682 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Harris: William S. Coleman, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.
Issue: Whether defendant’s rights to presence and counsel were violated by their absence from at least part of voir dire.
Holding: Defendant has both a nonwaivable statutory right to presence, and also a constitutional right to assistance of counsel, at jury selection.
Go to Brief

(See also Appeals, Waiver; and Evidence, Objection)
State v. Charles J. Benoit, 229 Wis.2d 630, 600 N.W.2d 193 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Benoit: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP.
Holding: “(A) defendant who makes a motion in limine preserves the right to appeal the issue raised by the motion without renewing the motion at trial,” but only to “the extent that the issue was raised during the motion in limine hearing.”

State ex rel. Michael J. Hager v. Marten, 226 Wis.2d 687, 594 N.W.2d 791 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Hager, Gerhardt F. Getzin, SPD, Wausau

Issue: Whether the § 971.14(2) time limit, requiring completion of competency exam w/in 15 days “of the arrival of the defendant at the inpatient facility,” was violated.

Holding: Resolution turns on whether the court specifically ordered an inpatient exam. No written order was entered,

State v. John P. Krueger, 224 Wis.2d 59, 588 N.W.2d 921 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Krueger: Gary S. Cirilli

Holding: The court reaffirms the holding of State v. Braunsdorf, 98 Wis.2d 569, 297 N.W.2d 808 (1980) that prior to attachment of jeopardy trial courts don’t possess the authority to dismiss a charge with prejudice except for denial of speedy trial.