Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Motion to Reconsider Trial Ruling – Necessity of Separate Appeal

State v. Matthew J. Trecroci, Ryan J. Frayer, Ronnie J. Frayer, Scott E. Oberst, Amy L. Wicks, 2001 WI App 126, PFR filed 5/31/01
For defendants: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether a motion to reconsider injected sufficiently new issues into the case so as to require a separate notice of appeal to make the order denying that motion reviewable.

Holding:

¶22 In summary, when the basis for a reconsideration motion is a recent decision, the test for appellate jurisdiction is still the Ver Hagen rule [Ver Hagen v. Gibbons, 55 Wis. 2d 21, 197 N.W.2d 752 (1972)]. Here, the State’s motion for reconsideration injected an entirely new issue into the case-a claim that the combination of probable cause and exigent circumstances served to justify the police conduct under Hughes. If the State wanted to complain about the trial court’s rejection of that claim on reconsideration, it was duty bound to appeal that ruling. It has not. Therefore, the Hughes issue is not properly before us. We accordingly limit our review to the matters covered by the trial court’s original order suppressing evidence.

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment