On Point: 27. Interest of justice

State v. A.P., 2021AP1146-47, 12/7/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A.P. appealed orders terminating his parental rights to his two children. The court of appeals rejected his claim that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it refused to make his mother the guardian of the children and his new trial in the interests of justice claim.

State v. Joseph T. Langlois, 2017 WI App 44, petition for review granted 12/13/17, affirmed, 2018 WI 73; case activity (including briefs)

We all know that an appellate court determines the accuracy of a trial court’s jury instructions by reviewing them as a whole, not in isolation. State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 637-638, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992).  But surely this doesn’t mean that a “whole” that includes incomplete, inaccurate instructions for some charges is fine so long as it includes the correct instructions for other charges. Surely we don’t expect 12 people unfamiliar with the complex law of “self defense” and “accident” to determine which versions of these instructions are correct and whether the same version applies to three distinct charges. This split opinion says “sure we do.” Judge Reilly objects to the majority’s “as long as the correct words are in there somewhere” approach to instructing a jury. Hopefully, SCOW will too.

State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 2015AP1598-CR, 3/29/17, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Congrats to the Remington Center for a winning a new trial in the interests of justice based on newly-discovered, 3rd-party perpetrator evidence 19 years after Scheidell was convicted of 1st degree sexual assault and armed robbery. Even better, their win was affirmed on appeal!

State v. McKellips, 2016 WI 51, 6/28/16, reversing a published court of appeals decision, 2015 WI App 31; case activity (including briefs)

SCOW here defines the phrase “computerized communication system” by separately defining each word, and then lumping together those definitions to conclude that text messages sent with a flip phone constitute “use of a computerized communication system.” It concludes that Wis. Stat. §948.075 is understood by persons of ordinary intelligence, and is therefore not unconstitutional; and that the circuit court’s jury instructions, while not perfect, were close enough. Additionally,  SCOW reminds the court of appeals that discretionary reversals under §752.35 are only for “exceptional cases.”

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In this case the supreme court will address an important issue about the offense of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, § 948.075(1r). The court of appeals granted McKellips a new trial on a charge under that statute, holding the jury was erroneously instructed to decide whether McKellips’s cell phone constituted a “computerized communication system” when it should have been instructed to decide whether McKellips’s uses of the phone constituted communication via a “computerized communication system.” The supreme court might also address another issue that has implications beyond § 948.075: Namely, whether instructional error that isn’t objected to at trial can be a basis for a new trial in the interest of justice.

State v. E.P., 2015AP1298-1300, 10/1/15, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A jury found grounds to terminate E.P.’s parental rights because his kids were in continuing need of protective services. The court of appeals rejected E.P.’s arguments that § 48.415(2)’s “6 months or longer” period (i.e. the time a child has been placed outside the home per a CHIPS order) begins to run only after he exhausted his appellate rights. The court also declined to order a new trial in the interests of justice.

State v. Corey R. Kucharski, 2015 WI 64, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Crooks; dissent by Bradley (joined by Abrahamson);  case activity (including briefs)

If you thought defending a discretionary reversal in SCOW was tough before, it just got tougher. Kucharski pled “no contest” to killing his parents but claimed he was not guilty by reason of mental illness due to schizophrenia. Voices told him to commit the murders. He had not been diagnosed with schizophrenia, but 3 doctors supported his NGI defense. The State presented no witnesses, yet the circuit court found that Kucharski failed his burden of proof. The court of appeals granted a new trial in the interests of justice. In a split decision, SCOW reversed and changed the “discretionary reversal” standard.

Town of Bloomfield v. Petko Zvetkov Barashki, 2015AP226, District 2, 6/24/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a case the court of appeals aptly describes as “unusual,” the court exercises its discretionary power of reversal under § 752.35 to throw out Barashki’s OWI 1st conviction and refusal finding on the grounds that the evidence doesn’t show the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop Barashki.

State v. Joel M. Hurley, 2015 WI 35, 3/31/15, reversing an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity (including briefs)

Disagreeing with the circuit court’s holding that Hurley was entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice, the supreme court holds that the prosecutor did not improperly refer in closing argument to Hurley’s testimony that he could not “recall” allegations regarding sexual assaults that were admitted as other-acts evidence.

Sheboygan County v. Terry L.M., 2014AP2010, 4/1/15, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); click here for docket

The court of appeals here rejects the County’s contention that it need not prove incompetency at a Chapter 55 commitment continuation hearing, but upholds the order for continued protective placement because Terry waived any errors in the jury instructions and special verdict and because the real controversy was tried.