On Point

State v. Shonna Hobson, 218 Wis.2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), on certification
For Hobson: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, LAIP, UW Law School

Holding: Wisconsin recognizes a common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest (i.e., w/o made w/o probable cause); but having recognized that privilege, the court simultaneously abrogates it (albeit prospectively only, because of ex post facto concerns). The holding is limited to “unlawful interference with the person”

State v. Prokopios G. Vassos, 218 Wis.2d 330, 579 N.W.2d 35 (1998), on certification
For Vassos: Edmund C. Carns

Holding: Successive prosecution for misdemeanor battery (§ 940.19(1)), following acquittal of felony battery (§ 940.19(3)) arising from same incident, wasn’t barred by double jeopardy. Successive prosecutions are barred under § 939.71 when the subsequent charge is the “same” offense under the “elements-only” test. That test isn’t met here,

State v. Matthew C. Janssen, 219 Wis.2d 362, 580 N.W.2d 260 (1998), affirming 213 Wis. 2d 471, 570 N.W.2d 746 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Janssen: Eugene A. Bartman, Brian G. Figy, SPD, Appleton Trial

Issue: Whether the flag desecration statute is constitutional.

Holding: The flag desecration statute, sec. 946.05, violates first amendment overbreadth principles, and can’t be saved by severing the unconstitutional portions.

Malvern Sullivan v. Waukesha County, 218 Wis.2d 458, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998), on certification
For Sullivan: William A. Denny

Holding: A DOT training pamphlet, explaining physical and mental impairment as the level of alcohol concentration increases, is held admissible under the sec. 908.03(8) (public records and reports) exception to the hearsay rule. The court stresses that the pamphlet’s data “are factual and were made pursuant to the department’s duty to administer and enforce the laws….”

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether the defense engaged in attacks on the complainant’s character for truthfulness so as to open the door to opinion testimony that she was truthful.

Holding: § 906.08 supports rehabilitation of a witness “only in limited situations,”

State v. Juan Eugenio, 219 Wis.2d 391, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998), affirming State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Eugenio: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether the state was properly allowed to admit into evidence, under the rule of completeness, certain oral “challenged statements in their entirety, to show consistency on significant factual issues,”

State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether an offer of proof must be in question-and-answer form.

Holding:

¶15 The court in Milenkovich did not say, and we do not say now, that every offer of proof should be accompanied by a question and answer format. There are cases in which the evidentiary problem posed is easily resolved by statements of counsel.

State v. Ronald A. Hansford, 219 Wis.2d 226, 580 N.W.2d 171 (1998), on certification
For Hansford: Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a bail jumping conviction may be sustained where based solely on commission of a new crime while out on bond, and the new crime is reversed on appeal

Holding: In such a situation, the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law.

In re Paternity of Roberta Jo W.: Roberta Jo W. v. Leroy W., 218 Wis.2d 225, 578 N.W.2d 185 (1998), on certification.

Holding:

The second issue is whether the circuit court erred in terminating court-appointed counsel upon the filing of a notice of appeal. We hold that after a notice of appeal was filed, the case was within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals,

State v. Dale Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Gruen: Scott F. Anderson

Issue/Holding:

… (W)hether or not Gruen was being detained pursuant to a Terry stop, or had been arrested for Fourth Amendment purposes, is not the determinative consideration. The only important inquiry is whether, for Fifth amendment purposes, he was “in custody.” To determine whether a person is in custody for Fifth amendment purposes:…