State v. Winston B. Eison, 2011 WI App 52; for Eison: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity Preservation of Issue – Motion in Limine Eison objected to introduction of evidence of his arrest on an unrelated offense via motion in limine, which the trial court granted. At trial, however, the court allowed the State to… Read more
Published 2011
State v. Derek J. Copeland, 2011 WI App 28; for Copeland: David Leeper; case activity Trial court has discretion under § 906.15(3) to order an attorney not to discuss with a sequestered witness who hasn’t yet testified the testimony of other witnesses; this authority extends to barring counsel from providing the sequestered witness with a… Read more
Shirley Anderson v. Northwood School District, 2011 WI App 31; case activity ¶7 n. 3: Northwood cites a circuit court decision from another case as persuasive authority, correctly noting that such a citation does not violate WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3), which prohibits citing unpublished appellate cases decided before July 1, 2009. However, Northwood then emphasizes we affirmed the… Read more
State v. Jason L. Miller, 2011 WI App 34; for Miller: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Miller BiC; State Resp.; Reply If the stun belt (or other restraint) isn’t visible to the jury, the trial court need not consider its necessity before requiring that the defendant wear it during trial. “Because there is… Read more
State v. Dennis C. Strong, 2011 WI App 43; for Strong: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Evidence that Strong possessed pails filled with methyl ethyl ketone (i.e., acetone, or paint thinner), with bare electrical wires running through the pails and attached to a wall outlets, held sufficient to establish guilt for possessing… Read more
State v. Demetrius M. Boyd, 2011 WI App 25; for Boyd: Rebecca Robin Lawnicki; case activity; Boyd BiC; State Resp.; Reply Request for New Counsel An indigent defendant doesn’t have the right to counsel of choice, but does have the right to counsel with whom he or she can communicate effectively. When an indigent defendant… Read more
Heather B. v. Jennifer B., 2011 WI App 26; for Jennifer B.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity Where abandonment as a ground for termination, § 48.415(1)(a)2., is triggered by removal from the home under a CHIPS order, the 3-month period of abandonment must fall completely within the duration of the CHIPS placement order. Here… Read more
State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2011 WI App 22; for Kletzien: James A. Rebholz; case activity; Kletzien BiC; State Resp.; Reply In a prior appeal, Kletzien unsuccessfully challenged denial of postconviction discovery, 2008 WI App 182. (See, e.g., State v. O’Brien, 223 Wis. 2d 303, 321, 588 N.W.2d 8 (1999) (recognizing “a right to… Read more
