State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 230 Wis.2d 189, 601 N.W.2d 284 (1999), on reconsideration of State v. Scheidell, 227 Wis.2d 285, 595 N.W.2d 661 (1999).
For Scheidell: Mitchell E. Cooper, SPD, Madison
Holding: Having previously refused to entertain Scheidell’s alternative argument in support of the decision being appealed, 227 Wis. 2d at 288 n. 1, the supreme court on reconsideration, recognizes “that the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon matter overlooked or ignored by it. …” (Quoting Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 475 n. 6 (1970).) Although the court now reaches the merits of these issues, it suggests that it is doing so as a discretionary matter, rather than by right: “In the exercise of judicial discretion, we have carefully considered the circuit court’s ruling on the handprint evidence.”
