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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Restitution – Limitations – Federal ERISA Preemption – Pension Fund Assets
State v. Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999) For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg Issue/Holding: Employee Retirement Income Security Act trumps Victims’ Rights. Kenyon was convicted of stealing about $150,000, and was ordered to pay restitution by “voluntarily” withdrawing funds from his pension fund. The COA reverses, holding that ERISA’s preemption […]
Restitution — Defenses — Setoff
State v. Laura Walters, 224 Wis.2d 897, 591 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1999) For Walters: Todd W. Bennett Issue/Holding: Setoff is available to reduce the amount of special damages. The defendant has the burden of proving facts necessary to this defense. Since the victim here suffered general as well as special damages, Walters was therefore […]
Restitution — Defenses — Accord & Satisfaction
State v. Laura Walters, 224 Wis.2d 897, 591 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1999) For Walters: Todd W. Bennett Issue/Holding: The COA refuses to acknowledge accord and satisfaction as a restitution defense. Restitution, the court reasons, “is not a claim which a defendant owns, as a civil claim is. It is a remedy that belongs to […]
Judicial Estoppel – Reliance on Party’s Position
State Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999) For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg Holding: Kenyon’s change in position from trial to appeal doesn’t fall within estoppel doctrine, because neither prosecution nor trial court relied on the changed position.
Restitution — Causation — Nexus Must be Shown, Otherwise Defendant Entitled to Hearing
State v. Derrick L. Madlock, 230 Wis.2d 324, 602 N.W.2d 104 (Ct. App. 1999) For Madlock: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether restitution may be ordered without a showing of causation or actual damages. Holding: The record must show at least a minimal nexus between the defendant’s criminal conduct and the victim’s claimed […]
Restitution — Special Damages — Definitions — Audit, etc.
State v. Nils V. Holmgren, 229 Wis.2d 358, 599 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1999) For Holmgren: William E. Appel Holding: Holmgren’s theft, related to unauthorized use of company’s credit card, gives rise to various restitution issues, all turning on the distinction between special and general damages. (Special damages — those which do not necessarily arise […]
Resentencing – modification of probation before term commences.
State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999), affirming unpublished decision For Gray: Helen M. Mullison Issue/Holding: Gray was originally convicted of three counts. On postconviction motion, the trial court vacated and dismissed with prejudice one count for lack of proof, and ordered a new trial on a second count. The […]
SVP Commitments – Evidence – Misconduct, § 904.04(2) – Proof of, Reliance on by Expert
State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175 For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: An SVP expert may rely on the respondent’s unproven prior misconduct in deriving his or her opinion. The § 904.04(2) “preliminary relevance” requirement, State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 59-61, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999); State v. Landrum, 191 Wis. […]
SVP – Trial: Evidence – Juvenile Adjudication
State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999) For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a juvenile adjudication is admissible in a Ch.980 proceeding, § 938.35(1) notwithstanding. Holding: A juvenile adjudication is admissible. § 938.35(1) expressly prohibits admissibility of a juvenile court disposition except for certain […]
SVP – Pretrial discovery – expert’s report
State v. Tory L. Rachel, 224 Wis.2d 571, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 1999). For Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate. Holding: Tory L. Rachel appeals a nonfinal order of the trial court ruling that the findings and conclusions of a court-appointed expert are subject to discovery in a ch. 980, STATS., proceeding. Because […]
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.