by admin
on September 16, 2016
Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity
Issue (composed by On Point)
Fond du Lac County v. Helen E.F., 2012 WI 50, 340 Wis. 2d 500, 814 N.W.2d 179 held that an individual is capable of rehabilitation, and thus a proper subject for treatment under Chapter 51, when treatment would control the symptoms of the individual’s disorder. If, on the other hand, treatment would control only the individual’s activity or behavior, then he is not a proper subject for treatment under Chapter 51. The question is: how are courts to determine whether treatment is controlling symptoms of disorder–especially when medical experts, when describing the effects of treatment, blur the line between symptoms and behavior? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 15, 2016
Review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)
Issues (composed by On Point)
Whether Nieves’s confrontation right was violated when the trial court permitted a witness to testify about a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession that, by implication, inculpated Nieves.
Whether a surviving victim’s testimony that someone had told him Nieves was planning to kill him was admissible to show how the victim “felt.”
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an alibi evidence that could have placed Nieves in Illinois on the night of the shooting.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 15, 2016
State v. Steven W. Heath, 2014AP2466-CR, District 4, 9/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Heath challenges the blood draw evidence in his OWI prosecution, claiming that the paramedic who did the draw wasn’t a “person acting under the direction of a physician” as required by § 343.305(5)(b) and that the method and manner of the blood draw was not constitutionally reasonable. The court of appeals rejects his claims. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 15, 2016
Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point)
Whether the circuit court erred in denying Zimbal’s post-remand substitution request as untimely where Zimbal orally requested that the judge recuse himself the day before remittitur and was not appointed counsel until after the 20-day time limit?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 14, 2016
Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point)
Did the circuit court err in holding that Suriano forfeited his Sixth Amendment right to counsel after three appointed attorneys withdrew from representing him because the court did not warn Suriano that forfeiture was a possibility and did not advise Suriano of the difficulties and dangers of self-representation?
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 13, 2016
State v. Lory F. Kerk, 2015AP2608-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court didn’t err in allowing the state to elicit testimony from its expert toxicologist that Kerk was impaired by the amount of alcohol and prescription drugs found in her blood. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 13, 2016
State v. Timothy A. Giese, 2015AP1838-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court’s recent decision in City of Eau Claire v. Booth Britton, 2016 WI 65, disposes of Giese’s claim that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over a mistakenly charged second-offense OWI. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 13, 2016
State v. Gary Abdullah Salaam, 2014AP2666-CR & 2667-CR, 9/13/2016, District 1 (Not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Salaam raises four claims challenging his convictions, at jury trial, of recklessly endangering safety, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and three counts of witness intimidation. The court affirms as to the first two counts but finds insufficient evidence as to the witness intimidation charges. [continue reading…]
{ }
