On Point

State v. Michael Brandt, 226 Wis.2d 610, 594 N.W.2d 759 (1999), affirming State v. Brandt, 220 Wis.2d 121, 582 N.W.2d 433 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Brandt: Michael J. Fitzgerald & Dean A. Strang.

Holding:

¶24 Where, as here, a circuit court ignores the plea questionnaire in its colloquy concerning the elements of the crimes, the adequacy of that colloquy rises or falls on the circuit court’s discussion at the plea hearing.

State v. Harold Merryfield, 229 Wis.2d 52, 598 N.W.2d 251 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Merryfield: Edward J. Hunt

Holding: Merryfield was originally charged with one felony and one misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor, and the state agreed to drop the felony (but critically, as it turns out, didn’t formally move to dismiss; nor did the trial court formally dismiss it). The case was adjourned for sentencing,

State v. Charles Dante Higgs, 230 Wis.2d 1, 601 N.W.2d 653 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Higgs: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether a sufficient factual basis was established on the element of bodily harm (where the defendant splashed the victim’s face with urine) to support a guilty plea to battery.

Holding: The mere fact that urine struck the victim’s face isn’t enough to establish bodily harm, but the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony that he felt stinging and burning satisfied the element.

State v. Darrin D. Burns, 226 Wis.2d 762, 594 N.W.2d 799 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Burns: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶3 We affirm the judgment of conviction in this case, even though the defendant did not expressly and personally articulate a plea of no contest on the record in open court, because the only inference possible from the totality of the facts and circumstances in the record is that the defendant intended to plead no contest.

State v. Frank J. Kosina, 226 Wis.2d 482, 595 N.W.2d 464 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kosina: Daniel F. Snyder

Holding: Guilty plea defendant need not be advised of permanent prohibition on firearms possession flowing from 18 USCA §§ 921 & 921, for conviction “of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” because it is a collateral consequence of the plea.

State v. David C. Tutlewski, 231 Wis.2d 379, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tutlewski: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether one witness’s opinion that state’s witnesses were incapable of lying invaded the jury’s province.

Holding: This testimony violated the rule that one witness may not testify to the credibility of another witness.

The alleged sexual assault victim and her roommate are cognitively disabled.

State v. Rodney G. Zivcic, 229 Wis.2d 119, 598 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Zivcic: John J. Carter

Holding: The trial court’s discretionary determination to admit expert testimony on the HGN sobriety test is upheld. In particular, specialized knowledge in the “underlying principles” of HGN testing isn’t necessary. All that’s required is expertise in administering and evaluating the test.

State v. Kurt J. Doerr, 229 Wis.2d 616, 599 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Doerr: John M. Carroll

Holding: A preliminary breath test (unlike certain other breath test instruments) requires expert testimony to explain its import:

The PBT device has not been approved by the DOT and does not receive a prima facie presumption of accuracy to establish a defendant’s blood alcohol level. Therefore,

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

Issue/Holding:

¶12. Wisconsin case law has not yet clarified whether, or on what basis, 911 calls, tapes, or transcripts may be admissible. Although the precise analysis may vary from case to case or even from call to call depending on the specific facts and circumstances, we see several avenues of admissibility for 911 evidence,

State v. Earl L. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Miller: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether a prior consistent statement is admissible where the declarant hasn’t been specifically cross-examined about his/her prior statement.

Holding: The requirement in § 908.01(4)(a) that the prior consistent statement declarant be subject to cross-examination concerning the statement requires only the opportunity for cross-examination, and not an actual inquiry into the area.