Supreme Court accepts seven new cases

Madison, Wisconsin - December 16, 2005

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept seven new cases. The case numbers, issues, and counties of origin are listed below. To read the full record, go to the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, Suite 215, Tenney Building, 110 E. Main St., Madison. Published Court of Appeals opinions and state statutes are hyperlinked.

04AP914-CR State v. L. Tiepelman
This case involves a man who claims that his prison sentence was based upon the judge’s erroneous understanding of his criminal record. The question before the Court is whether, in a motion for resentencing based upon the circuit court’s alleged reliance upon inaccurate information at sentencing, the party making the motion needs to prove that the judge actually based the sentence upon the faulty information. The Court also will determine if, for sentencing purposes, there is a distinction between reliance on prior convictions and charged facts that did not result in convictions? From Richland County.

04AP2010-CR State v. L. Anderson
This case involves a man convicted of first-degree sexual assault of a child. The Supreme Court is expected to decide if a defendant is entitled to a new trial in a situation where a jury requests to review the defendant’s testimony during deliberation and is denied by the trial court. From Milwaukee County.

04AP2592 R. Bartholomew, et al v. Wis. Patients Compensation Fund, et al
The Court of Appeals issued a summary disposition in this case; these are not available on the court system Web site. The questions in this case are whether an estate may recover non-economic damages for the deceased’s pre-death pain and suffering in addition to the surviving spouse’s wrongful death and loss of society damages. From Kenosha County.

04AP2936-CR State v. B. Hibl
This case began with a car crash. At trial, the judge granted a defense motion to suppress an eyewitness’s identification of one of the drivers, a decision that the Court of Appeals affirmed. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Supreme Court’s March 2005 decision in State v. Dubose controls the admissibility of eyewitness identification resulting from procedures other than “inherently suggestive” show-ups. The Court also is expected to clarify if Dubose overruled its opinion in a 1979 case (State v. Marshall, 92 Wis. 2d; 284 N.W. 2d 592). From Waukesha County.

04AP3384 B. Spiegelberg v. State of Wisconsin, et al
This case involves 150 acres of farmland divided into five tax parcels. When the state Department of Transportation took 11 acres for road building, a dispute over how to value the property sparked this court case. The question before the Supreme Court is whether, in situations involving multiple contiguous parcels of land, the property should be valued at (1) fair market value of the property as a whole, or (2) the sum of the fair market value of each individual tax parcel. From Winnebago County.

05AP2-NM Kenosha County Dept. of Human Services v. Jodie W.
Justice N. Patrick Crooks is not participating in this case.
The Court of Appeals issued a summary disposition in this case; these are not available on the court system Web site. The questions that this case raises include:
(1) Whether failure to meet an impossible condition of review is an appropriate and constitutional ground for termination of parental rights;
(2) Whether an agency satisfies its duty to make a “reasonable effort” to provide court ordered services when the services it provides do not contribute to a parent’s ability to meet a condition of return;
(3) Whether a circuit court errs in accepting a no contest plea as “knowing” when it is given in an internally inconsistent plea questionnaire or plea colloquy that indicates that the parent has certain alternatives that she does not in fact have, or waives other rights she clearly intends to reserve; and
(4) Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it refused to toll the time period set forth in Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.107(6)(e)?
Whether the circuit court or the court of Appeals erred in refusing to allow the parent an opportunity to present additional evidence to demonstrate her early release or her fitness as a parent? From Kenosha County.

05AP948-CR State v. J. Bonds
This case involves a man who was convicted of battery and sentenced as a repeat offender. The Court is expected to decide if Wis. Stat. § 973.12 requires the State to allege the specific prior convictions used as the basis of a repeater allegation before or at arraignment and before a plea acceptance. The Court also will clarify if records available on the Internet through the Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP) may form the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a repeater allegation. From Milwaukee County.

For more information contact:
Amanda Todd
Court Information Officer
(608) 264-6256

Back to headlines archive 2005