State v. Beverly Reshall Holt, 2013AP2738-CR, 3/8/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The trial court did not err in admitting the audiovisual recording of the forensic interview of Caleb, one of the child victims, at Holt’s trial for child sexual assault. [continue reading…]
City of Rhinelander v. Thomas V. Wakely, 2015Ap302, 3/8/16, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
While the accident reporting requirement under § 346.70(1) requires that property damage reach a certain minimum “apparent [monetary] extent” before the accident is reportable, it does not require a minimum monetary extent for personal injuries before the accident is reportable. [continue reading…]
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point):
Does the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws bar the mandatory imposition of a DNA surcharge for a single felony conviction based on conduct that was committed before the mandatory DNA surcharge requirement took effect? [continue reading…]
Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (composed by On Point):
Does the Confrontation Clause or Due Process Clause prohibit a circuit court from relying on hearsay evidence in deciding a suppression motion? [continue reading…]
Michael Wearry v. Burl Cain, USSC No. 14-10008, 2016 WL 854158 (per curiam) (March 7, 2016); reversing the 21st Judicial District Court, Livingston Parish, No. 01-FELN-015992, Div. A, application for writ denied, 161 So.3d 620 (La. 2015); Scotusblog page
The state violated Wearry’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding evidence that would have affected the credibility of witnesses implicating Wearry in a capital murder. Wearry is therefore entitled to a new trial. [continue reading…]
The latest edition of SCOWstats crunches the numbers on both petitions for review and merits decisions in criminal cases during the pre-Butler years, the Butler years, and recent years. The odds of getting a petition for review granted hasn’t change much over time. The State wins about 60% of its petitions and defendants win about 5%. But what happens after SCOW grants review? That’s where a dramatic difference emerges. Click SCOWstats.com for more details.
David Conrad v. United States, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 14-3216, 3/4/16
Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013), held that the ex post facto clause prohibits a sentencing court from using a Sentencing Guideline in effect at the time of sentencing instead of the Guideline in effect at the time of the offense if the new version of the Guideline provides a higher applicable sentencing range than the old version. The Seventh Circuit holds Peugh shouldn’t be applied retroactively to allow resentencing in a case that was final before Peugh was decided. [continue reading…]
State v. John D. Arthur Griffin, 2015AP1271-CR, 3/3/16, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals finds that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the car Griffin was driving and, even though that suspicion dissipated during the encounter, that the continued detention of Griffin was reasonable. [continue reading…]
