On Point

State v. Robert D. Hanson, 2000 WI App 10, 232 Wis.2d 291, 606 N.W.2d 278
For Hanson: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue: Whether the prosecutor undermined a 10-year sentencing cap by emphasizing that “this is an extremely violent case,” along with other aggravating factors.

Holding: By stressing to the trial court that she was standing by the plea agreement, “the prosecutor strongly affirmed the plea agreement and did not make any statements that expressly,

State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530
For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro

Issue: Whether a prior act involving drunken resisting arrest was properly admitted into evidence.

Holding: The prior act was admitted on the permissible purposes of showing intent and absence of mistake; had probative value due to strong similarities to the current offense; and, given high probative value along with cautionary instruction,

State v. Luther Wade Cofield, 2000 WI App 196, 238 Wis. 2d 467, 618 N.W.2d 214
For Cofield: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, on a charge of sexual assault where the defense was consent, evidence of prior sexual assaults were properly admissible.

Holding:

¶11 In reviewing the list set forth in WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2), we reject each of the proper ‘other purposes’

State v. Dale H. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606, reversing State v. Davidson, 222 Wis. 2d 233, 589 N.W.2d 38
For Davidson: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead

Issue: Whether, on a charge of sexually assaulting a 13-year old niece while on a camping trip, evidence of the defendant’s conviction ten years previous for sexually assaulting a 6-year old girl in a church basement was admissible.

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: Whether, in a trial for sexual assault of several adolescent males while staying at defendant’s parents’ home, evidence that defendant fondled an adult male, 5-7 years earlier while a guest at his home in Ohio,

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.