On Point: 1. Appeals

Wood County v. Zebulon K., 2011AP2387, and Wood County v. Forest K., 2011AP2394, District 4, 2/7/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: Zebulon K.; Forest K.

The evidence was not sufficient to prove that Zebulon and Forest need to be protectively placed. Though Zebulon and Forest are developmentally disabled, the evidence does not establish they are “so totally incapable of providing for [their] own care and custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to [themselves] or others” under Wis.

State v. William G. Bennett, 2012AP1757-CR, District 2, 1/30/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Evidence that Bennett sent a lewd and obscene letter to a person was sufficient to support conviction for disorderly conduct because the content of the letter placed it beyond a mere “personal annoyance” to the victim. Purely written speech can constitute disorderly conduct even if that written speech fails to cause an actual disturbance,

On review of court of appeals certification; case activity: Pinno; Seaton

Issue (from certification):

Is the failure to object to the closure of a public trial to be analyzed upon appellate review under the “forfeiture standard” or the “waiver standard”?

See our previous post for further discussion.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether there was sufficient proof that Mary F.-R. evidenced a “substantial probability of physical harm” to herself or others and was therefore dangerous under Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)(2).

2. Whether Wis. Stat. § 51.20(11) is an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because it provides for a jury of six in ch.

State v. Brian Avery, 2013 WI 13 (Wis. S. Ct. 1/30/13), reversing 2011 WI App 148; case activity

The supreme court affirms the trial court’s denial of Brian Avery’s Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, concluding there isn’t a reasonable probability a jury would have a reasonable doubt about Avery’s guilt. The court also holds Avery was not entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice.

State v. Jacob Turner, 2013 WI App 23;  case activity

Addressing an unusual set of facts, the court of appeals holds Turner’s constitutional rights to an impartial jury and due process were not violated by the seating of a juror who had not been summoned for service and who did not disclose that to the court.

A summons for jury duty was sent to “John P.

State v. Tavoris A. Murphy, Sr., 2012AP505-CR, District 4, 2/28/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Murphy argues the circuit court erred when it found good cause for the state’s late disclosure of a letter written by the defendant and ruled the letter would be admissible as rebuttal evidence. (¶¶1, 20, 22). The letter was written to DeKeyser, a defense witness, and outlined DeKeyser’s testimony.

State v. Andrew J. Wirth, 2012AP208-CR, District 4, 2/21/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Wirth was charged with the shooting deaths of two people outside a bar. He claimed self defense. The trial court allowed evidence that Wirth engaged in a confrontation earlier in the evening at a different bar with someone other than the shooting victims. In a fact-intensive opinion, the court of appeals concludes that if admission of the evidence was error,

Henderson v. United States, USSC No. 11-9307, reversing 646 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2011)

When is plain really plain? That’s the plain and simple issue in this case.  During trial, the district court decided a substantive legal question against the defendant.  But while the case was on direct appeal, SCOTUS, in a separate case, settled the legal question in the defendant’s favor, thus prompting a question about whether the district court’s decision in Henderson qualified as “plain error.”

Issue:  “Is the time for determining “plainness” the time when the error is committed,

Chaidez v. United States, USSC No. 11-820, affirming 655 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011)

Issue:  We know that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) requires counsel to advise a defendant about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea.  The question presented by Chaidez is whether or not that rule applies retroactively so that a person whose conviction became final before Padilla can benefit from it.