On Point blog, page 1 of 119
COA relies on testimony from initial commitment hearing and judicial notice of CCAP records to affirm ch. 51 recommitment
Columbia County v. T.R.B., 2025AP1972, 1/8/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
T.R.B. argues on appeal that the dangerousness evidence at the recommitment hearing was inadmissible hearsay, that the circuit court relied on that inadmissible hearsay in making its factual findings, and that with the hearsay evidence properly excluded, the county did not present sufficient evidence of his dangerousness. COA rejects his challenges, concluding that there was sufficient nonhearsay evidence in the record but looking to testimony from the initial commitment and taking judicial notice of outside facts.
COA rejects challenges to discretionary order in CHIPS case and affirms
State v. A.B., Jr., 2024AP2454-56, 12/16/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a rare CHIPS appeal, COA applies the discretionary standard of review and affirms.
COA applies harmless error rule to statutory right to be present at plea hearing, holds any error was harmless
State v. Charles Williams, 2024AP1424-CR, 12/2/25, District III (authored, not recommended for publication); case activity
Williams argues that the circuit court erred by denying his postconviction motion to withdraw his plea because he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right, under WIS. STAT. § 971.04(1)(g), to appear in person at the plea hearing. COA assumes without deciding that Williams did not waive his right to be present, but concludes that any error was harmless and affirms.
COA does not resolve novel Fourth Amendment issue, holds that consent excuses years-long seizure of cell phone
State v. Ryan D. Zimmerman, 2023AP1888-CR, 11/25/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity
Although Zimmerman identifies a novel Fourth Amendment issue, COA ultimately uses Zimmerman’s consent to get around that issue and affirms.
COA issues first impression decision on constitutionality of warrant to search contents of smartphone, holds “the warrant must specify the particular items of evidence to be searched for and seized from the [smart]phone,” and its authorization must be “limited to the time period and information or other data for which probable cause has been properly established… in the warrant’s supporting affidavit”
State v. Emil L. Melssen, 2024AP1942-CR, 11/20/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Emil Melssen appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial, in which he was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and related charges. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and the circuit court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the execution of two search warrants. COA rejects Melssen’s sufficiency argument, but concludes that the warrant to search his smartphone violated the Fourth Amendment because it was overbroad and not carefully tailored to its justifications. The court remands for a determination on the remedy.
COA finds sufficient evidence to affirm trial conviction for violating domestic abuse injunction by sending Facebook message.
State v. Clinton J. Adams, 2025AP1179, 11/26/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms jury’s conviction for knowingly violating a domestic abuse injunction over sufficiency challenge.
SCOTUS: Mississippi statute mandating screening child witness from defendant violates right to confrontation.
Jeffrey Clyde Pitts v. Mississippi, USSC No. 24-1159, 11/24/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)
SCOTUS reverses conviction for child abuse because Mississippi law that requires screening at trial for child witnesses conflicted with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to face-to-face confrontation.
Defense Win: In TPR rife with error, COA holds that court erroneously granted default judgment and clarifies ICWA voluntary termination procedure
Sheboygan County DH&HS v. Z.N., 2025AP1817, 11/7/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an unpublished but citable case, COA clarifies there is no requirement that respondent appear in person for a voluntary termination of parental rights in an ICWA case and reverses the circuit court’s default finding.
COA authorizes circuit courts to consider prejudice when determining whether to join cases for trial
State v. Max Bell, 2024AP1923-CR, 2024AP1924-CR, & 2024AP1925-CR, 11/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Whether to join cases for trial is a separate inquiry from whether to sever cases that have been joined. While the severance subsection of the joinder statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.12(3), directs the circuit court to sever charges if a party is prejudiced by joinder, the circuit court is not required by statute to consider prejudice when determining whether charges should be joined. See Wis. Stat. § 971.12(1),(4). Nevertheless, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that a circuit court is permitted to consider prejudice when making its initial joinder decision. The COA affirmed joinder of Max Bell’s charges for trial and his subsequent convictions in each case.
COA affirms TPR order, rejects arguments premised on “substantial likelihood” question for continuing CHIPS as undeveloped and forfeited
Kenosha County v. V.L.W., 2025AP1914, 11/12/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects “Victor’s” arguments on appeal, which are all based on the continuing CHIPS “substantial likelihood” provision applying in his case. COA concludes that Victor did not prove this provision, which requires that the has been placed outside the home for less than 15 of the most recent 22 months, should apply.