State v. Alvin M. Moore, 2006 WI App 61, PFR filed 3/21/06 For Moore: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single criminal offense in more than one count. State v. Grayson, 172 Wis. 2d 156, 159, 493 N.W.2d 23 (1992). Claims of multiplicity are analyzed using a two-prong test… Read more
12. Double Jeopardy, 5th Am.
State v. Jose M. Jaimes, 2006 WI App 93, PFR filed 5/11/06 For Jaimes: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: Retrial is ordinarily not barred when the defendant successfully requests mistrial, except where prosecutorial overreaching, comprised of the following elements, has been shown: the prosecutor’s has “ a culpable state of mind in the nature of an awareness that… Read more
State v. Jose M. Jaimes, 2006 WI App 93, PFR filed 5/11/06 For Jaimes: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: ¶11 Next, Jaimes argues that the prosecutor’s responsibility to avoid provoking a mistrial must extend to the law enforcement officers who testify at trial …. In effect, Jaimes argues that the officer’s testimony must be imputed to the… Read more
State v. Otis G. Mattox, 2006 WI App 110 For Mattox: Scott D. Obernberger Issue: Whether grant of mistrial over objection, after defense counsel was held in contempt for supposedly violating a court order with respect to questioning a witness, was manifestly necessary so as to permit retrial. Holding: ¶19 As noted, the chief concerns of… Read more
State v. Rachel W. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, reversing unpublished decision For Kelty: Michael J. Fairchild Issue/Holding: The defendant’s striking the victim “twice with two separate objects, each time committing herself to strike the baby, each blow separate, distinct, not identical in fact,” supports two separate charges of first-degree reckless injury, § 940.23(1)(a), ¶¶49-50. … Read more
State v. Richard A. Moeck, 2005 WI 57, affirming 2004 WI App 47 For Moeck: David D. Cook Issue/Holding1: ¶37 A mistrial is warranted if the mistrial is “manifestly necessary.” The State bears the burden to demonstrate that a “‘manifest necessity’ [exists] for any mistrial ordered over the objection of the defendant.” A “manifest necessity” warranting a… Read more
State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250 For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne Issue/Holding: ¶13 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution prevent the state from trying a defendant multiple times for the same offense. [4] “[G]iven the importance of… Read more
State v. Bart C. Gruetzmacher, 2004 WI 55, on certification For Gruetzamacher: Jennelle London Joset Issue/Holding: ¶14. We now decide whether circuit courts should be allowed to correct obvious errors in sentencing where it is clear that a good faith mistake was made in an initial sentencing pronouncement, where the court promptly recognizes the error, and… Read more
