On Point blog, page 14 of 25
Court of appeals holds evidence supports instructions and conviction on lesser-included offense of 1st-degree reckless homicide
State v. Brian A. Patterson, Appeal No. 2013AP749-CR, District 1, 7/22/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The State charged Patterson with 1st-degree intentional homicide in a shooting death, but the jury convicted him of a lesser-included offense: 1st degree reckless homicide. In a cut-and-dried decision, the court of appeals held the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, and found no circuit court error in allowing the jury to consider 1st-degree reckless homicide, instructing the jury, or sentencing Patterson.
SCOW: Violation of right to public trial is forfeited if defendant doesn’t object
State v. Nancy J. Pinno & State v. Travis J. Seaton, 2014 WI 74, 7/18/14, on certification from the court of appeals, and affirming the circuit court’s orders denying postconviction relief; majority opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity: Pinno; Seaton
Deciding an issue left open by State v. Ndina, 2009 WI 21, ¶¶34-38, 315 Wis. 2d 653, 761 N.W.2d 612, the supreme court rejects the argument that the right to a public trial must be affirmatively and knowingly waived by the defendant. Instead, the court holds, “[a] defendant who fails to object to a judicial decision to close the courtroom forfeits the right to a public trial, so long as the defendant is aware that the judge excluded the public from the courtroom.” (¶7).
Judge’s factual findings weren’t clearly erroneous, despite officer’s equivocal testimony
City of Antigo v. M.K., 2013AP2627, District 3, 7/8/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court held there was reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle M.K. was driving because the court found the officer knew the vehicle’s registration was expired before he made the stop. The court’s finding of fact was not clearly erroneous, even though the officer’s testimony was equivocal as to whether he learned that fact as part of the original dispatch or after he spotted the vehicle and called in the license plate.
Failure to object forfeits error in TPR case and prevents showing of harmful error
Barron County DH&HS v. Tara H., 2013AP2250, District 3, 12/27/13, unpublished; case activity
This is Tara H.’s 2nd trip to the court of appeals regarding this TPR. The first time she won a new dispositional hearing. At the start of that 2nd dispositional hearing, Tara’s counsel asked the trial court about the relevant time period for determining whether termination of her parental rights was in her son’s best interests.
SCOW: Six-person jury for involuntary mental commitment survives equal protection challenge
Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity
Majority opinion by Justice Crooks; concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson; additional concurrence by Justice Ziegler (joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman)
The issues in this case spring from State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 318-319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995)(“persons committed under Chapters 51 and 980 are similarly situated for purposes of equal protection comparison) and State v.
Charge of driving without valid license instead of operating after revocation didn’t deprive circuit court of jurisdiction
State v. Cindy Lou Hilsgen, 2013AP659-CR & 2013AP660-CR, District 3, 11/19/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
When Hilsgen moved here from Minnesota her driver’s license was revoked, and she never got a Wisconsin license. She was charged in two separate cases with operating without a valid license. Relying on § 343.05(6), she claimed in postconviction motions that she should have been charged instead with operating while revoked based on the status of her Minnesota license.
Right to confront and present evidence; probative value of evidence outweighed by prejudicial effect, § 904.03
State v. Damon R. Lowe, 2012AP555-CR, District 2, 9/18/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Lowe, charged with sexual and physical abuse of V.A.L., his adopted daughter, sought to present evidence that she was motivated to fabricate her allegations because she wanted to get away from her overly strict father, who restricted her use of cell phones, her internet use, and her choice of friends.
TPR — continuing CHIPS; sufficiency of the evidence that parent will likely not meet the required conditions for return of the child
Kenosha County DHS v. Debra S.A., 2013AP318, District 2, 7/24/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent decision that applies the well-established sufficiency standard (¶10), the court concludes the evidence at the fact-finding hearing permitted the trier of fact to conclude that Debra had not complied with requirements that she actively participate in mental health services and successfully complete and demonstrate an understanding of the principles taught in a parenting program and that she would not meet these conditions within nine months.
Repeated child sexual assault, § 948.025: instruction on first degree child sexual assault as lesser-included; other acts evidence; date of offense; ineffective assistance of counsel
State v. Robert T. Warriner, 2012AP244-CR, District 2/1, 7/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Instruction on first degree child sexual assault as lesser-included of repeated child sexual assault
At trial the child testified that Warriner sexually assaulted her on only two occasions, so the trial court agreed, over Warriner’s objections, to read the instruction for first-degree sexual assault of a child, § 948.02(1).
A reminder about preserving arguments
State v. Brian Kiale Little, 2012AP2162, District 4, 6/27/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
A year after Little pled no contest to carrying a concealed weapon he filed a motion for return of the gun and ammunition involved in the offense. The circuit court denied the motion because § 968.20(1m)(b) prohibits return of a dangerous weapon to a person who committed a crime involving the use of the weapon.