COA holds that defendant in forfeiture action is entitled to court costs following DA’s concession and dismissal of case
Dane County v. Jeramiah Bradley, 2025AP172, 9/18/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an unusual turn of events, the State actually conceded its prosecution of Bradley was unsupported under the law. The judge dismissed the case, but denied Bradley’s requests for costs. Although the State puts up a number of arguments to get around paying $381.85 in costs, COA rejects those arguments and reverses.
Bradley was prosecuted by the Dane County DA’s office for the forfeiture offense of possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. (¶1). Bradley filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the charge was legally unsupported for a variety of reasons. (¶2). The assigned prosecutor agreed and informed the court that, after reading the relevant statutes, Bradley could not be prosecuted for the charged offense. (¶3). Bradley then submitted a bill of costs under § 778.20, seeking a grand total of $381.85 related to filing fees, attorney fees, and other costs required by a prosecution the State now agreed was legally frivolous. (¶4). The State objected and the circuit court denied the request. (Id.).
On appeal, COA reverses and finds that Bradley’s request should have been granted under the plain language of the statute at issue, which states that “the county in which the forfeiture was incurred shall be liable for the costs of the prosecution, and, if judgment be for defendant, for all the costs of the action.” (¶8).COA therefore rejects a number of creative statutory construction arguments proffered by the State, and ultimately concludes that the circuit court’s “dismissal” was a judgment which triggered his ability to seek costs. (¶19). It also rejects appeals to public policy, holding that Wisconsin law is well-settled and squarely on Bradley’s side. (¶22). COA therefore reverses and remands for an assessment of costs. (¶23).