≡ Menu

13. Due Process

State v. Jonathan W. Nawrocki, 2008 WI App 23 For Nawrocki: Scott D. Obernberger Issue/Holding: ¶29      Having concluded that the showup identifications of Nawrocki were not necessary and therefore should have been suppressed, we next must address whether Albert’s and/or Gerhardt’s in-court identifications of Nawrocki were based on an independent source that was untainted by… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Kevin M. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/4/08 For Champlain: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Once it became aware that the jail administrator was requiring that the defendant wear an armband taser device during the jury trial, the court, “the trial court had an affirmative, sua sponte duty to inquire… 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 following… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ryan W. Drew, 2007 WI App 213, PFR filed 9/27/07 For Drew: Steven Zaleski Issue/Holding: Analysis of admissibility of photo array ID remains unchanged by the new standard for show-ups set by State v. Tyrone L. Dubose, 2005 WI 126: ¶2 We conclude that Dubose did not alter the standard for determining whether admission of an… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2007 WI App 256; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89,affirmed, 2005 WI 31 For Jensen: Robert H. Friebert, Matthew W. O’Neill Issue/Holding: ¶36      We agree with the State that the testimony of Jensen’s defense witnesses as to the practices of both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature of using… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Shawn B. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232 For Ebersold: Lester A. Pines Issue: Whether message sent via Internet chat room supports prosecution for § 948.11(2)(am), verbally communicating harmful material to child. Holding: ¶9    In this case, the parties dispute whether Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(am) prohibits communication of a harmful description or narrative account to… Read more

{ 0 comments }

§ 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 }
RSS