State v. Jesse H. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/24/03 For Swinson: Pamela Pepper Issue/Holding: Greater statutory double jeopardy protection afforded drug prosecution under § 961.45 than non-drug prosecution under § 939.71 doesn’t violate equal protection: ¶55. We note that while Wis. Stat. § 939.71 adheres to the dual sovereignty doctrine, Wis. Stat. § 961.45 does not. We… Read more
46. WI Court of Appeals
State v. Gary M.B., 2003 WI App 72, affirmed on other grounds, 2004 WI 33 For Gary M.B.: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: A court of appeals holding in a case reversed by the supreme court on other grounds, so that this holding was neither “overruled, withdrawn, or modified,” continues to bind the court of appeals. ¶13. The court… Read more
State v. Frederick Robertson, 2003 WI App 84 For Robertson: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where principal issue concerned the complainant’s credibility, indication first revealed after conviction that she had been treated for depression with psychotic features around the time of the incident required in camera inspection to determine whether her mental health records… Read more
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
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
State v. Richard N. Konkol, 2002 WI App 174 For Konkol: Brian Hough Issue/Holding: The proper test for admissibility of rebuttal evidence isn’t whether it could have been admitted in, or would have been useful to, the state’s case-in-chief, but whether it meets new facts put in by the defendant. ¶¶18-19. ¶18 Thus, the only… Read more
State v. Zan Morgan, 2002 WI App 124 For Morgan: Timothy A. Provis Issue: Whether Morgan was in custody, for Miranda purposes, after being handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car. Holding: Custody is determined under “the totality of the circumstances, including such factors as: the defendant’s freedom to leave; the purpose, place, and length of… Read more
State v. Howard C. Carter, 2002 WI App 55 For Howard: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Although review of a trial court’s determination of subjective (non-)bias of a prospective juror is generally deferential, here review is independent “because this is one of those rare situations where the prospective juror’s unambiguous response, rather than his… Read more
