On Point blog, page 15 of 117
COA offers unconvincing confrontation analysis in published case
State v. Antonio G. Ramirez, Jr., 2021AP1590, 11/15/23, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
There are some serious unresolved confrontation questions around statements alleged victims make in settings involving both medical treatment and criminal investigation: often, during a police-instigated physical examination after an alleged physical or sexual assault. Here, despite turning out a 52-page, recommended-for-publication opinion, the court of appeals fails meaningfully to address any.
COA upholds circuit court’s decision to exclude defendant’s proffered evidence regarding field sobriety tests at PAC trial
State v. Batterman, 2022AP181, 11/28/23, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Given the discretionary standard of review used to assess a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, COA wastes no time in upholding the court’s order excluding evidence the defendant did well on some field sobriety tests at a second offense PAC trial.
COA holds there’s nothing wrong with sending kids to a juvenile prison that, legally speaking, shouldn’t exist
State v. J.A.J., 2022AP2066, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity
In a noteworthy juvenile appeal, COA rejects a novel argument highlighting the dysfunctional nature of our juvenile justice system as caused by the “closure” of Lincoln Hills.
COA remands for “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing
State v. Michele M. Ford, 2022AP187 & 2022AP188, 10/31/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The takeaway from this procedurally convoluted case is that Ford succeeds in her appeal from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial in two misdemeanor cases. Specifically, the court reverses and remands for a “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing at which the circuit court will have to determine whether Ford was competent to proceed without relying on trial counsel’s statements to the evaluator, which the court holds violated the attorney-client privilege and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Op., ¶26).
COA rejects challenges to dispositional order in TPR case under well-settled standard of review
Chippewa County Department of Human Services v. T.M.J., 2023AP463 & 2023AP464, 10/24/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In another fact-dependent decision, COA affirms the circuit court’s order terminating parental rights with respect to 2 children.
COA upholds order finding prosecutor in contempt of court for violating sequestration order
Attorney Thomas L. Potter v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, the Honorable Kori Ashley, Presiding, 2022AP1396-CR, 10/17/23, District I (not eligible for publication); case activity
Although the prosecutor in this case may have conceptualized his decision to defy a court order as an act of civil disobedience necessary to preserve a challenge for appeal, COA disagrees and therefore affirms the circuit court’s order finding him in contempt.
COA affirms TPR dispositional order applying well-settled standard of review
State v. S.A., 2023AP1288-1292, 10/10/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a fact-dependent decision, COA affirms the circuit court’s order terminating parental rights with respect to 5 children.
COA affirms and agrees that officer’s violation of sequestration order need not result in new trial
State v. Marqus G. Phillips, 2023AP450, 10/4/23, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
That the Constitution does not guarantee an “error-free trial” is an unnecessary response to a straw man when a defendant seeks a new trial after it is discovered that the second of two state’s witnesses was found to have violated the circuit court’s witness sequestration order. It’s also an easy out where the circuit court’s lack of prejudice determination in denying a mistrial claim is reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review.
COA upholds order waiving juvenile into adult court based on finding that juvenile’s treatment needs currently being met just fine in less-restrictive placement
State v. T.H., Jr., 2023AP285, 10/3/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another juvenile waiver appeal demonstrating the power of the discretionary standard of review, COA affirms the circuit court’s order despite the potential internal inconsistencies of that ruling.
Defense Win! COA rejects state’s overly expansive bail jumping prosecution
State v. Aaron L. Jacobs, 2022AP658-659, 2022AP661-663, 9/19/23, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The key takeaway from this soon to be published court of appeals decision may seem obvious and inarguable, but as we’ll see below, the state pursued and the circuit court blessed what would have been a massive expansion of the most commonly charged crime in the state of Wisconsin: bail jumping.