On Point

State v. Timothy R. Stankus, 220 Wis. 2d 232, 582 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Stankus: Steven J. Watson

Issue/Holding: Telling the officer that the trunk did not open failed to limit the scope of consent to search the trunk when the driver also said, “you can even look in the trunk”:

His statement that the trunk did not open in no way restricted his initial consent.

State v. Timothy R. Stankus, 220 Wis. 2d 232, 582 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Stankus: Steven J. Watson

Issue/Holding: Though the officer had never touched cocaine before, his discovery of a white, flour-like susbtance in clear plastic bags under the seat supported probable cause. And, because he therefore had probable cause to believe the vehicle contained evidence of a crime, he was entitled to search every part of it,

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:

Judicial disqualification under § 757.19(2)(g), Stats., concerns not an outsider’s objective determination, but rather the judge’s subjective determination. See State v. American TV & Appliance, 151 Wis.2d 175, 182, 443 N.W.2d 662, 665 (1989). It mandates a judge’s disqualification “

State v. John L. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Griffin: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Like other jurisdictions, to be found guilty of possession of a controlled substance in Wisconsin, the defendant must have had the substance under his or her control and must have knowingly possessed the substance. See Wis J I-Criminal 920; Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d at 508,

State v. John L. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Griffin: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Griffin was charged with drug possession. In State v. Pozo, 198 Wis.2d 705, 714, 544 N.W.2d 228, 232 (Ct. App. 1995), we stated that although a large amount of cash on an unemployed defendant may be relevant to whether the defendant is selling drugs,

State v. Linda M. Henthorn, 218 Wis. 2d 526, 581 N.W.2d 544 Ct. App. 1998)
For Henthorn: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Viewing the facts most favorable to the prosecution requires us to assume that, despite her denial, Henthorn in fact altered the prescription, changing the refill number from “1” to “11.” She then presented the prescription to the pharmacist but took no further action.

State v. Robert J. Nichelson, 220 Wis. 2d 214, 582 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Nichelson: Paul M. Moldenhauer

Issue/Holding: fn. 8:

The State’s right to question a defendant’s attorney when the defendant alleges that the attorney failed to properly inform him or her before entering a plea is established in State v. Van Camp, 213 Wis.2d 131, 145, 569 N.W.2d 577,

State v. Robert J. Nichelson, 220 Wis. 2d 214, 582 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Nichelson: Paul M. Moldenhauer

Issue/Holding:

It therefore appears to be an issue of first impression in Wisconsin whether a court can accept a negative inference to establish proof by clear and convincing evidence. Under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, a negative inference is sufficient only if there is independent support in the evidence.

State v. Robert J. Nichelson, 220 Wis. 2d 214, 582 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Nichelson: Paul M. Moldenhauer

Issue/Holding:

The State concedes that the discussion between Willett and Nichelson did not include a “complete catalogue of the elements of the offense.” It also appears to concede that, “examined in a vacuum, the above colloquy [between Willett and Nichelson] would not satisfy the [constitutional] requirements.”

Annette Petrowsky v. Brad Krause, 223 Wis. 2d 32, 588 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Krause: Russell D. Bohach
For Petrowsky: Thomas McAdams, Pro Bono Project

Issue/Holding:

The issue on appeal is who constitutes a “household member” under the domestic abuse statute. This involves the construction of a statute. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law that appellate courts review without deference to the trial court.