State v. David Allen Bruski, 2007 WI 25, affirming 2006 WI App 53 For Bruski: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶20 …Bruski, as the proponent of a motion to suppress, has the burden of establishing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the search. Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98, 104 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128… Read more
2006-07 Term
State v. Gary A. Johnson, 2007 WI 32, affirming 2006 WI App 15 For Johnson: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether Johnson’s statement, “I don’t have a problem with that,” made in response to an officer’s assertion that they were “going to search the vehicle” was voluntary consent or mere acquiescence. Holding: ¶19 As the record… Read more
State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, reversing 2006 WI App 28 For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶31 A “fair and just reason” has never been precisely defined. State v. Shimek, 230 Wis. 2d 730, 739, 601 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999). Indeed, the fair and just reason standard “lack[s] any pretense of… Read more
State ex rel Frederick Lee Pharm v. Bartow, 2007 WI 13, affirming 2005 WI App 215 For Pharm: Jon G. Furlow, Nia Enemuch-Trammell,Roisin H. Bell (Pro Bono) Issue: Whether, following Pharm’s release in another state prison on life-time parole and his return here under the IAD to serve a Wisconsin sentence, he was subject to ch. 980 commitment… Read more
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Understanding Nature of Charge – Intersection with Factual Basis
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Failure to establish a factual basis for the guilty plea triggers Bangert procedure, ¶¶56-59, citing State v. Monika Lackershire, 2007 WI 74. In this instance (because of a last-minute inclusion of a ptac theory… Read more
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The defendant’s understanding of the charge must be detailed, in anon-perfunctory manner, on the record of the guilty plea: ¶52 The circuit court did not establish Howell’s understanding of the information it relayed to Howell by… Read more
State v. Thomas S. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion For Mayo: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: ¶54 We agree with the State’s position that Price’s out-of-court statements were properly admitted under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. In talking to Officer Langendorf, Price was describing a startling event——his encounter… Read more
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265 For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶27 n. 7: This court explained the procedure for read-in charges in Austin v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 727, 183 N.W.2d 56 (1971). When charges are read in during sentencing, the defendant admits… Read more
