Leo B. Hanley

The case involved a defendant convicted of two counts of burglary who appealed, claiming his waiver of a jury trial was invalid because it was entered by defense counsel without the defendant's explicit objection or direct inquiry by the court, and that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. After an initial remand for an evidentiary hearing on the waiver issue, the court credited counsel's testimony that he had discussed the nature and function of a jury trial with the defendant and concluded the waiver was valid. On the sufficiency challenge, the court held that evidence showing the defendant accompanied the principals to the crime scenes, remained present during the burglaries, and engaged in conduct such as acting as a lookout or prowling areas where items were taken was adequate to establish his liability as an aider and abettor. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned challenges to the extension of a defendant's confinement under Wisconsin's Sex Crimes Act following his sex offense convictions. The defendant argued that statements made to therapists during treatment were privileged under the physician-patient statute, that his prior criminal record should not have been admitted at the recommitment hearing, and that the trial court gave erroneous jury instructions on the required showing of dangerousness. The court held that the statutory exception for proceedings to hospitalize a patient for mental illness applied to Sex Crimes Act recommitment hearings, so the therapists' testimony was admissible; that evidence of the defendant's criminal history was relevant to show his pattern of behavior and could be admitted at the court's discretion; and that the instructions correctly reflected that the danger to the public need not be limited to physical harm. The court therefore affirmed the order extending confinement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree murder who challenged the admissibility of his statements to a corrections employee and police, claiming they violated Miranda rights, and sought to introduce psychiatric testimony during the guilt phase of his bifurcated trial to show he could not form the specific intent required. The court addressed whether the initial statement was custodial interrogation requiring warnings and whether later statements were tainted, as well as the constitutionality of excluding psychiatric evidence relevant to intent. It held that competent psychiatric testimony bearing on the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime must be admitted in the guilt phase, as its exclusion was not harmless error given the offer of proof that the defendant could not form intent to kill. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved whether the Wisconsin Department of Revenue could impose a use tax on natural gas consumed by Midwestern Gas Transmission Co. at its compressor stations in the state to propel gas through interstate pipelines. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision that the tax was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. The court reasoned that the consumption of the gas was an integral part of interstate commerce lacking a substantial nexus with Wisconsin, applying the four-part test from Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, and following precedents like Helson v. Kentucky that prohibit taxing fuel used directly in interstate transportation.

taxesfederal power

The case concerned whether a defendant could withdraw his guilty plea after conviction on the basis that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court held that a voluntary guilty plea waives such constitutional defenses but that withdrawal is permitted as a matter of right if a constitutional violation caused the plea and the defendant was unaware of the challenge at the time. Applying the Barker v. Wingo balancing test to the length of delay, reasons for it, the defendant's assertion of the right, and any prejudice, the court found no speedy-trial violation had occurred. Because no constitutional violation was established, the court did not need to examine the remaining elements for plea withdrawal and affirmed the trial court's refusal to allow withdrawal of the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a road leading to a landlocked parcel had become a public highway through the Town of Richwood's maintenance under Wis. Stat. sec. 80.01(2) or by common-law prescription after 20 years of public use. The plaintiff landowner argued that the town's work was permissive or done for a private easement holder and that the trial court had misallocated the burden of proof on summary judgment. The court held that the defendants made a prima facie showing of adverse public use and maintenance on occupied, agricultural land, shifting the burden to the plaintiff to prove permissive use, which his conclusory affidavits failed to do. It therefore affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants.

propertyprocedure