≡ Menu

Published 2001

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether distinct types of sexual assault (mouth-vagina and penis-vagina) necessarily support distinct counts. Holding: ¶59     There is another reason Koller’s second multiplicity challenge fails.  This second claim is directed primarily at the relationship between Count 4… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a psychologist must be licensed in Wisconsin to provide expert opinion in a Ch. 980 proceeding. Holding: No: “the standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony in this case is the general one… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Keith Alan VanBronkhorst, 2001 WI App 190 For VanBronkhorst: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether revocation of supervised release from a ch. 980 commitment was properly based on an uncharged rule violation. Holding: ¶9 … “(P)rocedural due process protections afforded in probation or parole revocation proceedings apply to supervised release revocation… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811 For Thayer: Jane K. Smith Issue: Whether the commitment subject has a right to present an independent medical report at a petition for discharge probable cause hearing, § 980.09(2)(a). Holding:  Although a Ch. 980 patient does have the right… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michael A. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182 For Sisk: Elvis Banks Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspicion to stop, based on information from a 911 call made from a payphone by an informant who provided nothing other than a name by way of identifying himself. Holding: ¶8. Here, because the caller gave what… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Exigency — Blood Alcohol

State v. Robert W. Wodenjak, 2001 WI App 216, PFR filed 8/31/01 For Wodenjak: Rex Anderegg Issue: Whether administration of a blood test, following OWI arrest, was reasonable under the fourth amendment, where the police first rejected the driver’s request for a (less invasive) breath test. Holding: As long as the standard for warrantless blood draw established… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS