≡ Menu

13. Due Process

State v. Ronald Ransdell, 2001 WI App 202, PFR filed 8/27/01 For Ransdell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether the automatic initial commitment to institutional care provision, § 980.06, on its face violates substantive due process. Holding: A person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must show its infirmity beyond reasonable doubt; a statute restricting liberty… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court’s response to a jury request to see a written report and a transcript of a witness’s testimony — that these items were “not available” — without first seeking defense input was error. Holding: The… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Right to Be Present – Voir Dire

State v. George S. Tulley, 2001 WI App 236 For Tulley: Patrick M. Donnelly Issue: Whether excluding defendant and his attorney from in camera voir dire of several jurors was reversible error. Holding: A defendant has both constitutional and statutory rights to be present, with assistance of counsel, at voir dire, and the trial court therefore erred… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Andres DelReal, 225 Wis.2d 565, 593 N.W.2d 461 (Ct. App. 1999) For DelReal: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Holding: The defense was denied exculpatory evidence when a detective testified that the defendant had not been swabbed for gunshot residue when in fact he had, with negative results… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Robert Carnemolla, 229 Wis.2d 648, 600 N.W.2d 236 (Ct. App. 1999) For Carnemolla: Robert T. Ruth Holding: A state’s witness testified that he had two priors, when in fact he had three. The court finds any error harmless, stressing that the witness was a prison inmate and testified in prison clothes – therefore… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998) For Hahn: Bruce Elbert Issue/Holding: The meaning of “gambling machine” is sufficiently well-understood as to survive a vagueness challenge. (The court reserves whether “contrivance” might be vague when applied to facts not raised by this case.)… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS