≡ Menu

2004-05 Term

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73< For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue/Holding: ¶40      The test for this harmless error was set forth by the Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), reh’g denied, 386 U.S. 987… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73 For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose Issue/Holding: Confrontation error deemed harmful, where the following evinced the tainted evidence’s impact: prosecutor’s litigation strategy, ¶51; jury’s reaction (which included repeated requests to have tainted testimony read… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶2 We conclude, based on our holding in State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, that the reduced maximum confinement penalties under TIS-II do not constitute new… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Jose A. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals For Trujillo: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13 We define a new factor as “an event or development which frustrates the purpose of the original sentence,” Champion, 258 Wis. 2d 781, ¶4, and recognize it to be more than a change… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555 For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8. The issue presented by the parties in the instant case is whether a circuit court’s denial of a chapter 980 petition for supervised release should be classified… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella Issue/Holding: ¶11. Since granting the petition for review in this case, we have determined that the issue presented is moot as to Riesch. “An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Mootness: Juvenile Extension Order

State v. Michael S., 2005 WI 82, reversing unpublished decision For Michael S.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶6 Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances. [3] A court may decide a moot issue when the issue is of great public importance; occurs frequently and a… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555 For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the only witness at Brown’s supervised release hearing was an expert who supported release, and the evidence indisputably showed favorable response to treatment, the State failed to meet… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS