≡ Menu

Published 2007

§ 903.03, Conclusive Presumptions — Generally

State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; companion case: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2007 WI App 256; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger Issue/Holding: ¶9        In State v. Kuntz, 160 Wis.  2d 722, 736-37, 467 N.W.2d… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31 For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger Issue/Holding: Jury instructions on the elements of duty and intent under § 946.12(3) created mandatory conclusive presumptions: ¶10       Schultz contends that the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Mark J. Roou, 2007 WI App 193 For Roou: John P. Tedesco, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue1: Whether the defendant was entitled to plea-withdrawal on both plea-based counts or only the one count as to which the plea was defective (given that the State promised not to re-prosecute the latter count). Holding1: ¶16 Roou… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Charles E. Dukes, 2007 WI App 175 For Dukes: Robert N. Meyeroff Issue/Holding: ¶29 Here, Detective Carter testified that he observed the building at 450 North 33rd Street, saw people coming, staying for a few minutes and leaving, and explained that such traffic was consistent with operating a drug house. He admitted, however… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. David C. Quarzenski, 2007 WI APP 212, PFR filed 9/21/07 For Quarzenski: Martin E. Kohler, Christopher M. Eippert Issue: Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s sentencing recommendation where: under the plea bargain the State agreed to and in fact “capped” its recommendation on several counts to a total… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Thomas C. Burton, 2007 WI App 237 For Burton: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: Testimony by a “gang expert” as to the gang-affiliation of certain witnesses, in an effort to explain their motive to testify as they did, was irrelevant in the absence of any evidence that the defendant was himself a gang member: ¶14… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶14      Although Cockrell describes his challenge to the prosecutor’s use of his post- Miranda silence as a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, the substance of his argument is the due process analysis employed… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶16      Building on footnote 11 in Doyle, courts have recognized situations in which it is not a violation of due process for the prosecutor to elicit on cross-examination the fact of the defendant’s post- Miranda silence for… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS