On Point: 1. Appeals

State v. Raymond R. Barton, 2019AP1990, 9/24/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Barton was convicted at trial of three counts involving battery of his adult stepson. He argues the trial court should have granted the mistrial he asked for when his daughter testified she was afraid that something had happened because “things had happened before.” He also asserts the court should have instructed the jury on self-defense. The court of appeals rejects both arguments.

State v. Decarlos K. Chambers, 2019AP411-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 9/16/20; case activity (including briefs)

Issue presented (derived from Cambers’ petition for review):

The State charged Chambers with 1st degree reckless homicide. He maintained that he had not committed the crimes and that was absolutely innocent. He refused all plea offers. Nevertheless, during closing arguments his lawyer told the jury they should consider convicting him of 2nd degree recklessly homicide, and they did.  The issues is whether trial counsel violated Chambers’ 6th Amendment right to determine his own defense under  McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S Ct. 1500 (2018).

Waukesha County v. C.A.E., 2020AP834-FT, District 2, 9/16/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Carly” argued that the circuit court committed plain error when it admitted and relied on hearsay evidence of dangerousness introduced through the County’s testifying doctor at her recommitment hearing. She also challenged the court’s involuntary med order because the last time the testifying doctor had discussed the “advantages and disadvantages of medication” with her, as required by §51.61(1)(g)4, was 5 years prior to the hearing. Both arguments failed on appeal.

Sauk County v. S.A.M., 2019AP1033, 9/3/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), reversed, 2022 WI 46; case activity

Wisconsin involuntarily commits mentally ill people  at a higher rate than any other state in the United States–close to 5 times the national average. Click here. Wisconsin is also in the minority of states that will dismiss an appeal from an expired commitment order as moot. Unless we’re  prepared to accept that, compared to the rest of the country, Wisconsin has a much larger percentage of residents who are both mentally ill and dangerous, this is troubling. It suggests that Wisconsin may be unlawfully committing and medicating people and then denying them their right to appeal. SCOW is poised to decide whether commitment appeals are ever moot. So the court of appeals could have stayed this appeal until SCOW resolved the point. Instead, it walked out on a limb to dismiss the appeal as moot.

State v. Nathaniel R. Lecker, 2020 WI App 65; case activity (including briefs)

The application of a statute to undisputed facts is a question of law. This is an incontrovertible maxim of appellate review. “Question of law” sounds so august and erudite and specialized, doesn’t it? A question of law is a question into which an astute lawyer–or judge–would have special insight; he or she could be trusted to come to the right–or at least a particularly sound–answer to such a question. But sometimes statutes are written in very ordinary terms with no particular resonance, and no special definition, in the legal world. And sometimes these ordinary terms are also rather elastic–or relative. In those instances, can the answer to a “question of law” be something other than a standardless, “know it when I see it” exercise of arbitrary will?

State v. Morgan E. Geyser, 2020 WI App 58; case activity (including briefs)

Morgan Geyser, one of the two 12 year old defendants in the Slenderman case, was charged in adult court with attempted 1st degree intentional homicide. At her preliminary hearing, the court found probable cause that she committed a crime for which it had exclusive jurisdiction. On appeal, Geyser argued that the adult court had found the facts necessary to mitigate attempted 1st degree homicide to attempted 2nd degree homicide and thus it lost jurisdiction. She also argued that her custodial statements to police should have been suppressed because her Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The court of appeals rejected both arguments.

State  v. Catherine Cuskey Large, 2019AP1966-CR, 8/13/20, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals correctly affirmed the circuit court’s decision to suppress OWI evidence in this case, where an officer admitted that the New Glarus Police Department’s “protocol” was to administer PBTs on motorists whether they had probable cause for OWI or not. But court of appeals did so by taking a heavy-handed approach to waiver, a rule of administration that appellate courts have the discretion to apply or not.

Rock County v. R.J., 2020AP93, 8/13/20, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Thank heavens this opinion is not published. R.J’s initial commitment expired before he filed his notice of appeal. According to the court of appeals, R.J. should have sua sponte addressed mootness in his initial brief–before the County ever argued the point. Because R.J. waited to see whether the County would even raise mootness and then addressed the matter in his reply, the court of appeals dismissed his appeal. The court of appeals also made an error of law regarding the “contemporaneous objection” requirement.  Hopefully, R.J. will move for reconsideration or petition for review.

State v. Darrin Stingle, 2019AP491, District 3, 7/28/20 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Stingle is not the typical subject of an On Point post. He owns farmland in Outagamie County, and the DNR cited him for discharging fill material into wetlands on it. At a 1-day bench the trial judge twice made comments suggesting that he had prejudged the case. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. It also admonished (but did not sanction) the State’s appellate lawyer for requesting an extension two weeks after its deadline for filing a response brief.

State v. Joseph K. Edwards, 2019AP2138-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Edwards was charged with disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon for “creepy, stalker-like behavior.” (¶6). The court of appeals rejects his complaint that the jury wasn’t instructed on the definition of “true threat” under State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762.