State v. Roberto Vargas Rodriguez, 2006 WI App 163, PFR filed 8/28/06 For Rodriguez: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶39 Questions that call for a narrative are generally improper because they do not alert court and counsel to the subject about which the witness is about to testify. There are exceptions, however, and whether… Read more
Published 2006
State v. Juan F. Milanes, 2006 WI App 259, PFR filed 12/7/06 Milanes: Joan M. Boyd Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to litigate a (Miranda) suppression motion was not deficient where the issue turned purely on a credibility dispute between defendant and the detective and pursuit of the motion would have required rejecting a favorable offer, ¶¶15-16… Read more
State v. Juan F. Milanes, 2006 WI App 259, PFR filed 12/7/06 For Milanes: Joan M. Boyd Issue/Holding: Failure to pursue an NGI defense wasn’t deficient: ¶19 … The evidence in support of Milanes’ claim is remarkably weak; the strongest piece of evidence is the report of his psychiatric expert, which contains a conclusory statement that Milanes… Read more
State v. Quentrell E. Williams, 2006 WI App 212 For Williams: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Because “recklessly” causing harm to a child, § 948.03(b), is determined solely from an objective point of view, evidence related to whether the actor “subjectively thought his [disciplinary action] was reasonable parental discipline” is irrelevant, including evidence… Read more
State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10 For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶23 At trial, Kramer asserted he acted in self-defense, and the jury was instructed on imperfect self-defense. A successful defense based on imperfect self-defense reduces first-degree intentional homicide to second-degree intentional homicide. [12] The test is subjective; a defendant must… Read more
State v. Kevin J. Helsper, 2006 WI App 243 For Helsper: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶20 Fines and attorney fee obligations involve different State purposes, and therefore a different constitutional analysis. When analyzing the constitutionality of a fee recoupment statute, the court is to consider, among other things, the rationality of the… Read more
State v. Stephen D. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214, PFR filed 10/26/06 For Harmon: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶14 The “two clear purposes” of Wisconsin’s hit-and-run statute are: (1) to ensure that injured persons may have medical or other attention with the least possible delay; and (2) to require the disclosure of information so that… Read more
State v. Stephen D. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214, PFR filed 10/26/06 For Harmon: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: The § 346.67(1) requirement that a driver provide name, address, vehicle registration number, and driver’s license “to the person struck” does not violate the 5thamendment under controlling authority of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 426 (1971), notwithstanding that the statute… Read more
