On Point blog, page 5 of 117
Defense Win! COA reverses order denying suppression motion in juvenile appeal
State v. K.R.W., 2024AP1210, 2/19/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Although COA does not address K.R.W.’s broader constitutional argument, it holds that suppression is warranted given the State’s violation of a statute requiring an intake worker to warn a juvenile of his right to counsel and right against self-incrimination before taking that juvenile’s statement.
COA holds that difference between “L meth” and “D meth” does not create a defense to RCS prosecution
State v. Walter L. Johnson, 2024AP79-CR, 2/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case resolving a hot issue for OWI litigators, COA rejects challenges to an RCS prosecution based on the chemical difference between “L meth”–found in certain nasal decongestant sprays–and “D meth,” which is found in illicit street drugs.
COA rejects challenges to extension and medication orders and affirms another Chapter 51
Racine County v. C.D.B., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In “Banks’s” most recent appeal, he once again challenges the sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to his extension and medication orders. Like his last appeal, however, those arguments go nowhere.
COA rejects sufficiency challenge to grounds and finds that court did not err in terminating parental rights
State v. R.J.S., 2024AP2186, 2/7/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
COA rejects R.J.S.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and applies a well-settled standard of review to uphold the circuit court’s discretionary termination order.
COA once again holds that a colloquy is not required before a person stipulates to a mental commitment order
Sheboygan County v. N.A.L., 2024AP1195, 2/5/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 5/21/25 case activity
In yet another appeal asking COA to clarify the procedure for accepting a stipulation to a mental commitment, COA refuses N.A.L.’s invitation to issue a precedential opinion and affirms based largely on a prior unpublished decision.
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI 1st and refusal convictions
City of Rhinelander v. Zachary Tyler LaFave-LaCrosse, 2020AP1120 & 1121, 1/7/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
LaCrosse appeals pro se from the circuit court judgments, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of first-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. COA rejects all his arguments and affirms.
D4 issues another speedy trial decision recommended for publication, holds that COVID-related delays should not weigh against the state
State v. Cordero D. Coleman, 2023AP2414-CR, 12/27/24, District IV (recommended for publication), case activity
COA holds that a 32-month delay in trying Coleman did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial where the COVID-19 pandemic was the primary cause of the delay. In doing so, COA identifies a new category of reasons for state-attributed delay, “which encompasses those delays that are caused by a reasonable government response to a legitimate public emergency” and holds such delays should not be weighed against the state. (¶56).
SCOW issues two opinions clarifying aspects of appellate procedure
In a set of non-criminal opinions, SCOW issues new guidance on the commonly-invoked rule that COA is not at liberty to disagree with its own precedents and also takes another run at clarifying when a final order is truly “final” for the purposes of appeal.
Defense Win! COA remands for new CHIPS trial
State v. T.D.V., 2024AP2057-FT, 1/22/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
The State fails to adequately respond to T.D.V.’s argument that his substitution request was improperly denied, so COA remands the matter for a new trial.
Court of Appeals certification asks whether Fourth Amendment safeguards are implicated when ESPs scan for child pornography
State v. Andreas W. Rauch Sharak, 2024AP469-CR, 1/16/25, District 4; case activity (including briefs)
Rauch Sharak’s appeal concerns whether Fourth Amendment safeguards are implicated when an electronic service provider (ESP) scans for and reviews digital files in an individual’s account that are flagged as child pornography; and when law enforcement subsequently opens and views any flagged files that the ESP sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).