prima facie presumption in Wisconsin

2024If the parent's motion demonstrates a prima facie violation, "the court must hold a post-disposition evidentiary hearing at which the state is given an opportunity to show by clear and convincing evidence that the [parent's] plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary despite 35 No. 2022AP1329 the identified inadequacy of the plea colloquy." Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594, ¶40 (citing Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d at 274 ). ¶59 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.426(2) mandates that, "The best interests of the child shall be the prevailing factor considered by the court in determining the disposition of all proceedings und

2018While this approach might prove workable with regard to a plea of guilty to child enticement, which has six possible modes of commission, it will be unworkable with regard to a plea of guilty to burglary, which has many more modes of commission. 8 No. 2015AP2429-CR.ssa meaning of "sexual contact." Such reasoning is incompatible with due process. ¶55 In Bangert, the court established that when a defendant shows "a prima facie violation of Section 971.08(1)(a) or other mandatory duties, and alleges that he in fact did not know or understand the information which should have been provided at the

1997The rulings in Bardwell and Disch flow from Trailer Service, 61 Wis. 2d at 407-08 , 212 N.W.2d at 688-89 , where the supreme court held: [A] method or process for testing which is expressly authorized by statute is entitled to a prima facie presumption of correctness of purpose.

1997The rulings in Bardwell and Disch flow from Trailer Service, 61 Wis. 2d at 407-08 , 212 N.W.2d at 688-89 , where the supreme court held: [A] method or process for testing which is expressly authorized by statute is entitled to a prima facie presumption of correctness of purpose.

1998In In re Suspension of Operating Privilege of Bardwell, 83 Wis. 2d 891, 900 , 266 N.W.2d 618 (1978), this court held that "[a] chemical test specified by a statute may not be deemed unreliable as a matter of law." Thus, a "recognized method[ ] of testing author-; ized by statute [is] entitled to a prima facie presumption of accuracy." State v. Disch, 119 Wis. 2d 461, 475 , 351 N.W.2d 492 (1984).

1998In In re Suspension of Operating Privilege of Bardwell, 83 Wis. 2d 891, 900 , 266 N.W.2d 618 (1978), this court held that "[a] chemical test specified by a statute may not be deemed unreliable as a matter of law." Thus, a "recognized method[ ] of testing author-; ized by statute [is] entitled to a prima facie presumption of accuracy." State v. Disch, 119 Wis. 2d 461, 475 , 351 N.W.2d 492 (1984).

2024If the parent's motion demonstrates a prima facie violation, "the court must hold a post-disposition evidentiary hearing at which the state is given an opportunity to show by clear and convincing evidence that the [parent's] plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary despite 35 No. 2022AP1329 the identified inadequacy of the plea colloquy." Brown, 293 Wis. 2d 594, ¶40 (citing Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d at 274 ). ¶59 Wisconsin Stat. § 48.426(2) mandates that, "The best interests of the child shall be the prevailing factor considered by the court in determining the disposition of all proceedings und

2023First, a plea- withdrawal motion "is reviewed by the court" to determine whether it "establishes a prima facie violation of . . . court- mandated duties and makes the requisite allegations," namely that "the defendant did not know or understand the information that should have been provided at the plea hearing." State v. 5 No. 2022AP652.rfd Brown, 2006 WI 100, ¶¶39-40 , 293 Wis. 2d 594 , 716 N.W.2d 906 .

2003Preloznik v. City of Madison, 113 Wis. 2d 112 , 116, 334 N.W.2d 580 (Ct. App. 1983). *678 ¶ 25.

2003Preloznik v. City of Madison, 113 Wis. 2d 112 , 116, 334 N.W.2d 580 (Ct. App. 1983). *678 ¶ 25.

1984The rationale employed by the court of appeals was that the breathalyzer test carried a prima facie presumption of accuracy and the question of how accurately the test was performed went to the weight to be given the test, not its admissibility. 105 Wis. 2d at 674 .

1984The rationale employed by the court of appeals was that the breathalyzer test carried a prima facie presumption of accuracy and the question of how accurately the test was performed went to the weight to be given the test, not its admissibility. 105 Wis. 2d at 674 .

2013See State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78, ¶ 33 , 301 Wis. 2d 642 , 734 N.W.2d 115 ; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2009See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2010See State v. Busch, 217 Wis. 2d 429, 443 , 576 N.W.2d 904 (1998) (explaining that approved quantitative breath alcohol test instruments, like the Intoxilyzer, are recognized methods of testing authorized by statute and are thus entitled to a prima facie presumption of accuracy); Wis. Admin.

2010See State v. Busch, 217 Wis. 2d 429, 443 , 576 N.W.2d 904 (1998) (explaining that approved quantitative breath alcohol test instruments, like the Intoxilyzer, are recognized methods of testing authorized by statute and are thus entitled to a prima facie presumption of accuracy); Wis. Admin.

2003See Fritz v. McGrath, 146 Wis. 2d 681, 683 , 431 N.W.2d 751 (Ct. App. 1988).

2003See Fritz v. McGrath, 146 Wis. 2d 681, 683 , 431 N.W.2d 751 (Ct. App. 1988).

1989T.A.T. v. R.E.B., 144 Wis. 2d 638, 652 , 425 N.W.2d 404, 410 (1988).

1989T.A.T. v. R.E.B., 144 Wis. 2d 638, 652 , 425 N.W.2d 404, 410 (1988).

2025Duren, 439 U.S. at 364 .

1980The United States Supreme Court recently set forth what a defendant must prove to show a prima facie violation of his sixth amendment right to a jury pool representing a fair-cross-section of the community in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 537 , 58 L.

1971In In re Will of Valentine (1896), 93 Wis. 45, 54, 55 , 67 N. W. 12 , this court stated: “Where, as here, it is established that the testatrix properly executed a valid will, and the same was last known to be in her possession but cannot be found on her death, there is a prima facie presumption that she destroyed it with the intention of revoking it, but such presumption may be overcome by competent evidence.” We pointed out in Will of Faulks (1945), 246 Wis. 319, 349 , 17 N. W. 2d 423 : “When some evidence to the contrary is received, that is, evidence which if uncontradicted is sufficient to

1971In In re Will of Valentine (1896), 93 Wis. 45, 54, 55 , 67 N. W. 12 , this court stated: “Where, as here, it is established that the testatrix properly executed a valid will, and the same was last known to be in her possession but cannot be found on her death, there is a prima facie presumption that she destroyed it with the intention of revoking it, but such presumption may be overcome by competent evidence.” We pointed out in Will of Faulks (1945), 246 Wis. 319, 349 , 17 N. W. 2d 423 : “When some evidence to the contrary is received, that is, evidence which if uncontradicted is sufficient to

1995See Grams, 97 Wis. 2d at 338 , 294 N.W.2d at 476-77 .

1995See Grams, 97 Wis. 2d at 338 , 294 N.W.2d at 476-77 .

1991The chemical test procedures are mechanical in nature, State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis. 2d 191, 203 , 289 N.W.2d 828, 835 (1980), and consequently, intoxilyzer test results are entitled to automatic admissibility and to a prima facie presumption of accuracy to establish the defendant's blood alcohol level.

1991The chemical test procedures are mechanical in nature, State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis. 2d 191, 203 , 289 N.W.2d 828, 835 (1980), and consequently, intoxilyzer test results are entitled to automatic admissibility and to a prima facie presumption of accuracy to establish the defendant's blood alcohol level.

2014In Suren v. Zuege, 186 Wis. 264 , 201 N.W. 722 (1925), the court interpreted the statute as rendering a police officer liable for breach of the duty of ordinary care for the safety of others and himself, stating: This statutory exemption .. . while rendering [the officer] immune from prosecution or preventing the application of the rule that such excess of speed may establish a prima facie presumption of negligence, does not absolve [the officer] from the duty to exercise that which, under those circumstances and conditions, is reasonable and ordinary care for the safety of others and himself.

2014In Suren v. Zuege, 186 Wis. 264 , 201 N.W. 722 (1925), the court interpreted the statute as rendering a police officer liable for breach of the duty of ordinary care for the safety of others and himself, stating: This statutory exemption .. . while rendering [the officer] immune from prosecution or preventing the application of the rule that such excess of speed may establish a prima facie presumption of negligence, does not absolve [the officer] from the duty to exercise that which, under those circumstances and conditions, is reasonable and ordinary care for the safety of others and himself.

2022Id.; Erdmann v. SF Broad. of Green Bay, Inc., 229 Wis. 2d 156, 163 , 599 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1999) (“To make a prima facie case for summary judgment, [the] moving defendant [in a defamation action] must establish a defense that would defeat [the plaintiff’s] claim as a matter of law.”).

2022Id.; Erdmann v. SF Broad. of Green Bay, Inc., 229 Wis. 2d 156, 163 , 599 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1999) (“To make a prima facie case for summary judgment, [the] moving defendant [in a defamation action] must establish a defense that would defeat [the plaintiff’s] claim as a matter of law.”).

2017See Gagliano & Co. v. Openfirst, 2014 WI 65, ¶32 , 355 Wis. 2d 258 , 850 N.W.2d 845 .

2017See Gagliano & Co. v. Openfirst, 2014 WI 65, ¶32 , 355 Wis. 2d 258 , 850 N.W.2d 845 .