State v. Troy Curtis Christensen, 2005 WI App 203 For Christensen: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Given proper notice that calls are subject to recording or monitoring, WESCL allows intercepts of outgoing jail calls notwithstanding the potential for capturing attorney-client calls. (State v. Deonte D. Riley, 2005 WI App 203, ¶13 n. 5, which… Read more
Published 2005
State v. Deonte D. Riley, 2005 WI App 203 For Riley: William E. Schmaal Issue/Holding: A recorded message heard by any jail inmate placing an outgoing call, to the effect the call may be recorded, was sufficient to trigger WESCL’s one-party consent exception: ¶10 The WESCL is patterned after Title III of the federal Omnibus Control… Read more
State v. Neil P. Jackson, 2005 WI App 104 For Jackson: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶7 Jackson alleges that the jury instruction on conspiracy violated his right to due process because, he contends, “conspiracy to attempt” is a nonexistent crime. Jackson relies on United States v. Meacham, 626 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1980), and People v. Iniguez… Read more
State v. Reginald Jones / Maurice E. O’Neal, 2005 WI App 26, (AG’s) PFR filed 2/23/05 For Jones: John P. Tedesco, SPD, Madison Appellate For O’Neal: Jess Martinez Issue/Holding: Though the facts are almost indistinguishable from those in State v. Lawrence A. Williams, 2002 WI 94, 255 Wis. 2d 1, 646 N.W.2d 834, consent to search a car immediately after conclusion of… Read more
State v. Earnest Alexander, 2005 WI App 235 For Alexander: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether description of a shooting suspect as a black male wearing black skull cap, black jacket and dark pants, more than a day after the shooting permitted the stop of Alexander ten blocks east of the crime scene, wearing… Read more
State v. Damian Darnell Washington, 2005 WI App 123 For Washington: Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶17 … While the officer testified that he was going to cite Washington for loitering, he did not demonstrate a reasonable, articulable basis for doing so. Investigating a vague complaint of loitering and observing Washington in the… Read more
State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243 For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall Issue/Holding: The following instruction is sufficient: “Great bodily harm means serious bodily injury. You, the jury, are to alone to determine whether the bodily injury in your judgment is serious.” (La Barge v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 327, 333, 246 N.W.2d 794, 797… Read more
State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115 For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas Issue/Holding: “¶22 … The crime of physical abuse of a child, as applied to the matter at hand, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the following three elements: (1) Kimberly caused bodily harm to Jasmine, (2) Kimberly intentionally caused such… Read more
