State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222 For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶16. Jipson’s answers, while incriminating, have no bearing on the focus here. That is, the answers do not establish Jipson knew the State had to prove the purpose of the sexual contact was an element of the… Read more
Published 2003
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222 For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶7. When challenging a guilty or no contest plea, the defendant has the initial burden to produce a prima facie case comprised of the following two parts. First, the defendant must show the trial court accepted the… Read more
Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207, PFR filed 10/23/03 Issue/Holding: Contempt is an inherent judicial power, but is legislatively regulated, such that its exercise outside the statutory scheme is proscribed. ¶17. The required statutory procedure is determined by whether the contempt is remedial or punitive. The latter punishes past conduct for the purpose of upholding authority… Read more
Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46 Issue/Holding: Banishment from victims’ county, under harassment injunction, § 813.125, upheld: ¶18 Thus, banishment is not a per se constitutional violation. As the previous discussion demonstrates, there is no exact formula for determining whether a geographic restriction is narrowly tailored. Each case must be analyzed on its own facts, circumstances… Read more
State v. Andrew S. Miller, 2003 WI App 74, PFR filed 4/11/03 For Miller: Brian C. Findley, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶12. This court has found that rights under the Detainer Act “are statutory in nature and may be waived by a defendant’s request for a procedure inconsistent with its provisions.” Brown, 118 Wis. 2d… Read more
State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03 For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: While not bound by the Judicial Council Committee Note, the court of appeals nonetheless “view(s) it as significant authority in construing the rule.” ¶40. (See also id., n. 16: “In promulgating the rules of evidence, the Wisconsin… Read more
State v. Daniel H. Kutz, 2003 WI App 205, PFR filed 10/27/03 For Kutz: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: “A definitive pretrial ruling preserves an objection to the admissibility of evidence without the need for an objection at trial, as long as the facts and law presented to the court in the pretrial motion are the… Read more
State v. James S. Riedel, 2003 WI App 18, PFR filed 1/27/03 For Riedel: Ralph A. Kalal Issue/Holding: ¶8. At the outset, we reject the State’s threshold argument that Riedel is precluded from challenging the trial court’s suppression ruling based on Riedel’s conviction on the OWI charge and the dismissal of the PAC charge. The… Read more
