Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Published 2002

State v. Kevin M. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/4/08 For Champlain: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶37      Owner nonconsent, like other elements of criminal offenses, may be proved by circumstantial evidence. See Bohachef v. State, 50 Wis.  2d 694, 700-01, 185 N.W.2d 339 (1971). The test on review is… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. William F. Williams, 2000 WI App 123, 237 Wis.2d 591, 614 N.W.2d 11 For Williams: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court’s express policy of never accepting an “Alford” plea worked an erroneous refusal to accept such a plea. Holding: ¶8  Even if we were to determine that the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: ¶16. Weed argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting Michael’s statement regarding unloading the .357 because the statement did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2). Weed principally… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Robert Jamont Wright, 2003 WI App 252 For Wright: Ann Auberry Issue/Holding: ¶35. Wright’s appellate argument rests largely on Van Rybroek’s testimony at the Machner hearing, which documents the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. However, as the trial court aptly observed, trial counsel’s decision to forego an expert was made prior to Lomack surfacing… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kevin J. Van Riper, 2003 WI App 237 For Van Riper: Anthony L. O’Malley Issue/Holding: ¶13. Thus, the cumulative effect of Wideman and Spaeth is as follows: (1) the proof requirements of Wis. Stat. § 973.12(1), the repeater statute in the criminal code, do not apply in OWI prosecutions (Wideman); and (2) a DOT teletype is competent… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. William A. Silva, 2003 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/4/03 For Silva: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler, Donald E. Chewning Issue/Holding: Prior sexual assaults were admissible at Silva’s trial for 1st-degree sexual assault of his 6-year old niece: Silva’s 13-year old niece; Silva’s girlfriend’s 13-year old daughter; and Silva’s 9-year old daughter. ¶¶27-28… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Cross-examination — Bias — Pending Charges

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02 For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds Issue/Holding A witness’s pending criminal charges are relevant to bias, even absent promises of leniency. ¶55. In this instance, the trial court prohibited cross-examination about whether the witness was receiving benefits from the state for his testimony, but only after… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Nathan T. Hall, 2002 WI App 108 For Hall: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School Issue/Holding: Because the trial court failed to explain its reasoning, its sentence was an erroneous exercise of discretion. In particular, the trial court exceeded the PSI recommendation (107 years) by approximately 200 years, without explaining either the necessity for… Read More

{ 0 comments }