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.
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Suppression issue – Guilty Plea
State v. Tonnie D. Armstrong, 223 Wis.2d 331, 588 N.W.2d 606 (1999), reconsideration denied, 225 Wis.2d 121, 591 N.W.2d 604 (1999)
For Armstrong: Steven A. Koch and Seymour, Kremer, Nommensen, Morrissy & Koch
Issue/Holding: Armstrong pleaded guilty, with suppression issues (admissibility of oral statements) preserved as matter of law under Wis. Stat. § 971.31(10). The supreme court holds that the trial court’s refusal to order suppression was error,
SVP – Pretrial – Probable Cause Hearing – Bindover sufficiency
State v. John J. Watson, 227 Wis.2d 167, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Watson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Holding: For fact-specific reasons, the state established probable cause to proceed with this 980 case; bindover is established by more than reliance on inadmissible hearsay.
SVP – Sufficiency of evidence
State v. Frank Curiel, 227 Wis.2d 389, 597 N.W.2d 697 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Curiel: Jack. C. Hoag, Sedor & Hoag.
Issue/Holding: “¶7 Is the verdict of the court supported by the evidence? We hold that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the commitment of the defendant under Wis. Stat. ch. 980.” The testimony of a single expert witness that Curiel was much more likely than not to reoffend suffices to uphold the commitment (even though that witness did not personally interview Curiel).
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised release – “least restrictive” placement
State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 227 Wis.2d 316, 595 N.W.2d 692 (1999), afffirming and remanding 221 Wis.2d 401, 585 N.W.2d 637 (Ct. App. 1998).
For Sprosty: T. Christopher Kelley, Thomas, Kelly, Habermehl & Mays.
Issue/Holding:
¶3 We conclude that a circuit court, in its discretion, may consider the availability of facilities to house or to treat a sexual predator under Wis. Stat. § 980.08(4). However,
Counsel – Conflict of Interest – Prior Appearance as Prosecutor
State v. Michael Love, 227 Wis.2d 60, 594 N.W.2d 806 (1999), reversing State v. Love 218 Wis.2d 1, 579 N.W.2d 277 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Love: Philip J. Brehm.
Holding: Love was represented at sentencing after revocation by an attorney who had been the prosecutor at the original sentencing, 20 months earlier; the attorney couldn’t remember appearing for the state at the original sentencing.
§ 940.24, Negligent Offenses — handling dangerous weapon – dogs
State v. Jene R. Bodoh, 226 Wis.2d 718, 595 N.W.2d 330 (1999), affirming State v. Bodoh, 220 Wis.2d 102, 582 N.W.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bodoh: Michael D. Mandelman
Holding: A dog can be a dangerous weapon if used or intended or intended to be used in a manner calculated or likely to cause death or great bodily harm. (This holding has the effect of ratifying a prior court of appeals decision on this point,
Common Law Privileges – Self-Defense, as Applied to Carrying Concealed Weapon
State v. John V. Dundon, 226 Wis.2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999), on certification
For Dundon: William S. Coleman, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.
Holding:
¶36 In Coleman, we recognized that “a narrow defense of privilege under Wis. Stat. § 939.45(6) exists to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm.” Coleman, 206 Wis. 2d at 210.
§ 943.30(1), Extortion – Threatening Interference with Education
State v. Richard L. Kittilstad, 231 Wis.2d 245, 603 N.W.2d 732 (1999), affirming State v. Kittilstad, 222 Wis.2d 204, 585 N.W.2d 925 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kittilstad: Richard L. Wachowski
Issue: Whether threats to interfere with educational opportunity may amount to extortion under § 943.30(1).
Holding: A threat to interfere with education is tantamount to a threat to a “calling or trade,”
§ 944.21, Obscenity – constitutionality – jury instructions – selective prosecution – prevailing community standards
County of Kenosha v. C & S Management, 223 Wis.2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), on certification
For C & S: Robert R. Henak, and Shellow, Shellow & Glynn
Holdings:
- Obscenity statute, Wis. Stat. § 944.21 (1995-96), survives freedom-of-speech and void-for-vagueness challenges.
- Expert testimony on community standards isn’t constitutionally required; telephone survey wasn’t relevant, largely because it didn’t convey the explicitness of a video,
§ 944.32, Prostitution – Soliciting Voyeuristic Acts
State v. Richard L. Kittilstad, 231 Wis.2d 245, 603 N.W.2d 732 (1999), affirming State v. Kittilstad, 222 Wis.2d 204, 585 N.W.2d 925 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kittilstad: Richard L. Wachowski
Issue: Whether offering money in exchange for the opportunity to watch sex acts may amount to soliciting prostitution under § 944.32.
Holding: The statute requires that the defendant “solicit” someone “to practice prostitution.”
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.