Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Published 2005

State v. Daniel D. King, 2005 WI App 224 For King: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: An interview by a detective of the victim at a hospital shortly after the charged assault, admitted into evidence as an excited utterance, is deemed “testimonial” (and, therefore, inadmissible under the confrontation clause) because it involved “response(s) to ‘structured police… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250 For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne Issue/Holding: ¶13      The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution prevent the state from trying a defendant multiple times for the same offense. [4] “[G]iven the importance of… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Ambiguous Assertion of Rights — Silence

State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80 For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1: Hassel’s custodial statement, “I don’t know if I should talk to you” was ambiguous and therefore triggered no duty to terminate the interrogation, ¶¶16-19. The court of appeals purported to follow Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994)… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Xavier J. Rockette, 2005 WI App 205 For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶24     We conclude that Rockette did not waive his Miranda rights. Rockette does not argue that Chausee did anything to coerce his confession. Indeed, the purpose of Rockette’s cooperation at the interview, which his own counsel set up, was to increase… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Noncustodial Assertion of Rights

State v. Richard Allen Hassel, 2005 WI App 80 For Hassel: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Hassel’s noncustodial statement, “I can’t talk to you,” did not amount to a Miranda-protected assertion of rights, largely because such rights can’t be invoked “anticipatorily,” ¶¶8-15. (State v. Fencl, 109 Wis. 2d 224, 325 N.W.2d 703 (1982) distinguished as a rule of evidence safeguarding… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Charles W. Mark, 2005 WI App 62, affirmed, 2006 WI 78 For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶14 … (I)f probationers are required to choose between answers that will incriminate them in pending or subsequent criminal prosecutions and loss of their conditional liberty as a price for exercising their right to remain… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Arents v. ANR Pipeline Co., 2005 WI App 61 Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 2: Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.19(1)(d) and (e) (2001-02) requires the parties to provide in their briefs separate sections for their “statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review” and argument. In their appeal, the Landowners have, inappropriately, interspersed legal argument and… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Christine M. Quackenbush /  State v. Michael D. Lee, 2005 WI App 2 For Quackenbush: Tyler J. Tripp For Lee: Thomas F. Locante, SPD, La Crosse Trial For Amicus: Joseph N. Ehmann, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue1: Whether, in light of State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, the court of appeals retains any… Read More

{ 0 comments }