On Point

State v. Dennis J. Reitter, 227 Wis.2d 213, 595 N.W.2d 646 (1999), on certification
For Reitter: Michael C. Witt, Monogue & Witt, S.C.

¶3 … where a defendant expresses no confusion about his or her understanding of the statute, a defendant constructively refuses to take a breathalyzer test when he or she repeatedly requests to speak with an attorney in lieu of submitting to the test. We also hold that because the implied consent law creates statutory privileges,

State v. Jamerrel Everett, 231 Wis.2d 616, 605 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Everett: Timothy T. Kay; Michael Patrick Cotter

Issue: Whether the prosecution constituted double jeopardy because the defendant had been disciplined for the same conduct by the juvenile institution.

Holding: Although prison discipline may carry punitive aspects, its principal purposes are institutional order and rehabilitation, State v. Fonder, 162 Wis.

State v. Roger L. Warren, 229 Wis. 2d 172, 599 N.W.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Warren: Daniel F. Snyder

Holding: Warren’s perjured testimony at a single hearing dealing with a single general subject supports multiple perjury counts, because each charge dealt with different perjured details and is therefore “different in fact” if not law. In other words, “different evidence is required to establish that Warren responded falsely to the questions upon which”

State v. John J. Thoms, 228 Wis. 2d 868, 599 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Thoms: Steven L. Miller

Issue/Holding: The court reverses a persistent repeater sentence, § 939.62(2m). Thoms was originally charged in the complaint with the standard 10-year sentence enhancement, § 939.62(1)(c)&(2), based on a prior felony theft conviction. However, the information changed the enhancement allegation to persistent offender, § 939.62(2m) – life without parole.

State v. Andres DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999)
For DelReal: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Holding: The defense was denied exculpatory evidence when a detective testified that the defendant had not been swabbed for gunshot residue when in fact he had, with negative results.

State v. Dawn C. Moline, 229 Wis. 2d 38, 598 N.W.2d 929 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Moline: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue/Holding:

By this decision, we hold that a prior conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia pursuant to § 961.573, STATS., qualifies as a prior offense under the repeat drug offender statute, § 961.48(3), STATS. … The statute is meant to include all prior convictions,

Monroe Swan v. Douglas LaFolette, 231 Wis.2d 633, 605 N.W.2d 640 (Ct. App. 1999)

Issue: Whether denial of opportunity to become notary public due to felony conviction violates ex post facto provision.

Holding: Ex post facto clause forbids punishing as crime any act which wasn’t punishable when committed, but laws that merely disadvantage someone don’t; because the plain language of the new notary public provision evinces no intent to punish,

State v. Tartorius Allen, 226 Wis.2d 66, 593 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Allen: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding: A frisk is an intrusion additional to the stop, and requires additional justification about the presence of a weapon, which the court finds:

Allen and his companion being in a high-crime area, standing alone, would not be enough to create reasonable suspicion. A brief contact with a car,

State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte.

Issue/Holding: The jail assessment in §§ 302.46(1) & 814.60(2)(ag) is contingent on imposition of a fine or forfeiture.

Section 814.60(2)(ag), STATS., provides that “[i]n addition to any fine imposed, a defendant shall be required to pay any … [j]ail assessment imposed by s. 302.46(1).”  Section 302.46(1), 

State v. Daniel E. Rohe, 230 Wis.2d 294, 602 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Rohe: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue: Whether costs for a sexual assault examination were properly taxable, where the examination neither produced any results nor was used at trial.

Holding: Because the examination was part of the state’s investigation and prosecution; and because the examiners were on the state’s witness list,