On Point

State v. Crystal Harrell a/k/a Parker, 199 Wis. 2d 654, 546 N.W.2d 115 (1996)

Issue/Holding:

The issue before us is whether, in a case tried by the district attorney’s office, a circuit court judge, whose spouse is an assistant district attorney in the same county, is required to disqualify himself or herself under either Wis. Stat. § 757.19(2)(a) (1993-94),1–prohibiting a judge from hearing a case when a close relative is “counsel thereto”

State v. Munoz, 200 Wis. 2d 391, 395, 546 N.W.2d 570 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Munoz: Craig M. Kuhary

Issue/Holding:

Here, as in Lederer, the defense offered nothing more than “the mere possibility” that the records “might produce some evidence helpful to the defense.” Lederer, however, was decided before Shiffra. The broad language of Shiffra-“that the sought-after evidence is relevant and may be helpful to the defense,” 

State v. Robert L. Myers, Jr., 199 Wis. 2d 391, 544 N.W.2d 609 (Ct. App. 1996)

Issue/Holding:

We agree with the State that the potential for a future ch. 980, Stats., commitment was a collateral consequence of Myers’ guilty plea. Trial courts may not accept a guilty plea unless they are satisfied that the plea is knowing and voluntary. State v. James, 176 Wis.2d 230,

State v. Wilfred E. Tobias, 196 Wis. 2d 537, 538 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1995)
For Tobias: Barbara A. Cadwell

Issue/Holding: That suspect had learning disability, required medication to deal with visual hallucinations but was off his meds during the interrogation not enough to establish voluntariness.

State v. Mary Boyer, 198 Wis. 2d 837, 543 N.W. 562 (Ct. App. 1995):

In an “argument” presented in one sentence, the defendants assert, without citation to authority, that if § 161.47, STATS., does not apply to them, “there is an equal protection under the law problem that will arise.” Arguments in appellate briefs must be supported by authority, RULE 809.19(1)(e) & (3)(a), STATS., and we need not consider arguments that do not comply,

State ex rel. Hill v. Zimmerman, 196 Wis. 2d 419, 538 N.W.2d 608 (Ct. App. 1995)

Issue/Holding:

Section 972.15(2), Stats., provides, “When a presentence investigation report has been received the judge shall disclose the contents of the report to the defendant’s attorney … prior to sentencing.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, before sentencing, a defendant has an absolute right to obtain the presentence report. In such a setting,

State v. Michael T. Morgan, 197 Wis. 2d 200, 539 N.W.2d 887 (1995)
For Morgan: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Calvin Malone

Issue/Holding:

… The court of appeals then held that the search of Morgan was supported by articulable facts in the record, including the “fairly-high-crime-rate area”; Morgan’s driving in two alleys at approximately 4:00 a.m.; Morgan’s nervous and unsuccessful efforts to produce a driver’s license upon request;

State v. Nakia N. Hayes, 196 Wis. 2d 753, 540 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1995)
For Hayes: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Next, Hayes argues that innocent persons could become caught up in the “all occupants” provisions of the search warrant. This obviously is true. But it does not necessarily invalidate the warrant. The test is not whether innocent persons might be present on the premises,

State v. Wilfred E. Tobias, 196 Wis.2d 53, 538 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1995)
For Tobias: Barbara A. Cadwell

Issue/Holding1:

The primary concern in attenuation cases is whether the evidence objected to was obtained by exploitation of a prior police illegality or instead by means sufficiently attenuated so as to be purged of the taint. Anderson, 165 Wis.2d at 447-48, 477 N.W.2d at 281.