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
NGI — Conditional Release Trial — Jury Instruction on Medical Justification / Substantive Due Process
State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998) For Randall: Waring Fincke Issue/Holding: Randall proposed to ask the jury, “Is there any medical justification for the Petitioner’s continued confinement at the Winnebago Mental Health Institute or any other in-patient mental health facility?” The trial court, holding that the […]
NGI — Conditional Release Trial — Sufficiency of Evidence on Dangerousness
State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998) For Randall: Waring Fincke Issue/Holding: Evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Randall not be released, based largely on the cicrcumstances of his crime.
Sentence Modification: Judicial Estoppel Bar — Agreement to Recommended Sentence
Scott A. Magnuson, 220 Wis. 2d 468, 583 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1998) For Magnuson: T. Gregory Amann Issue/Holding: We conclude that Magnuson is judicially estopped from asserting that the two twelve-year concurrent sentences are excessive. Although Magnuson contends he did not agree to the recommended sentence, the record belies his claim. Magnuson’s probation officer […]
Sentencing – Review — Factors — Character — Rehabilitative Needs
State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998) For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Bizzle argues that the sentencing court erred in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation. … First, her successful completion of an educational program, after sentencing, is not evidence that the court […]
Sentencing – Factors: Seriousness of Offense
State v. Pablo Cruz Santana, 220 Wis. 2d 674, 584 N.W.2d 151 (Ct. App. 1998) For Santana: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: In passing sentence, the trial court addressed each of the primary factors, but chiefly relied on the seriousness of the offense and its continuing impact on the victim. … Santana claims, […]
SVP – Sufficiency of evidence
State v. Paul Matek, 223 Wis.2d 611, 589 N.W.2d 441 (Ct. App. 1998) For Matek: Russell Bohach Holding: Evidence to support ch. 980 SVP verdict sustained: the diagnosis took into account Matek’s refusal to participate in treatment, and therefore the verdict “was not based solely on his prior bad acts.”
SVP – Sufficiency of evidence – pedophilia
State v. Ronald J. Zanelli (II), 223 Wis.2d 545, 589 N.W.2d 687 (Ct. App. 1998) For Zanelli: Jane K. Smith. Holding: Second time’s not the charm for Zanelli, who won his 1st appeal, State v. Zanelli (I), 212 Wis. 2d 358, 569 N.W.2d 301 (Ct. App. 1997). On this subsequent appeal, the court holds the […]
Double Jeopardy – Prosecutorial Misconduct: Retrial Barred Notwithstanding Absence of Defense Request for Mistrial
State v. Lettice (II), 221 Wis. 2d 69, 585 N.W.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1998) (prior history: State v. John A. Lettice (I), 205 Wis. 2d 347, 556 N.W.2d 376 (Ct. App. 1996); subsequent history: BAPR v. Steven M. Lucareli, 2000 WI 55) For Lettice: John Allan Pray, UW Law School Issue/Holding: We conclude that (1) Lettice is […]
Enhancer — § 161.48(2) (1993-94), Drug Offender — Second or Subsequent Offense
State v. Frank Miles, 221 Wis. 2d 56, 584 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1998) For Miles: Craig W. Albee Issue/Holding: Prior drug conviction is not element of crime of second or subsequent drug offense, § 161.48(2) (1993-94), which elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanor to felony possession: Miles fails to recognize the distinction between the two […]
Enhancers — § 961.49, Youth Center
Debra L. Van Riper, 222 Wis. 2d 197, 586 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 1998) For Van Riper: Megan L. DeVore Issue/Holding: Because day care centers provide recreational and social services activities for children, they are a subset of “youth centers” and come within the definition of places listed in § 961.49(2), Stats. The protection of […]
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.