On Point: d. Law of the case

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2021 WI 27, 3/18/21, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition; case activity (including some briefs)

Julie Jensen died by poisoning in 1998. The state eventually charged her husband, Mark, with having killed her; the defense was that she had died by suicide. Before her death Julie had made oral and written statements to the effect that Mark would be responsible if something happened to her. She wasn’t available to testify at the trial, of course, and Mark moved to exclude these statements on Confrontation grounds. Our supreme court now holds that, when it held these statements testimonial in a prior appeal (in 2007), it established the law of the case; it further concludes that SCOTUS has not altered the law so much since then that the law-of-the-case doctrine should give way. So, it remands for a new trial, without the statements.

State v. Mark D. Jensen, 2018AP1952, petition for review of a summary court of appeals order granted 6/16/20; affirmed 3/18/21; case activity

Usually we do to the issues presented first. Here, they’re pretty insubstantial, so let’s just say what’s going on: the supreme court has intervened to (potentially) save a manifestly unconstitutional (and you don’t have to take our word for it) homicide conviction and life sentence in a notorious case.

State v. Adam W. Vice, 2020 WI App 34, petition for review granted 8/30/20, reversed, 2021 WI 63; case activity (including briefs)

This is a “recommended for publication”, split court of appeals opinion where the State lost in a child sexual assault case. In other words the State will surely petition for review, and SCOW will take it. Applying State v. Davis, 2008 WI 71, 310 Wis. 2d 583, 751 N.W.2d 332, the majority held that the defendant’s polygraph test and the confession were two discrete events, but based on the facts of this case, the confession was involuntary. The dissent by Judge Hruz would hold the confession voluntary.

State v. Robert E. Hammersley, 2018AP1022, District 3, 7/30/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including appellant’s brief)

Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016), doesn’t provide a basis to void the revocation of Hammersley’s driver’s license back in 1995 for refusing a blood alcohol test after his OWI arrest.

State v. Joshua D. Winberg, 2016AP108-CR, District 3, 1/10/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate whether the driver was operating under the influence.

State v. Michael S. Dengsavang, 2015AP637-CR, 6/1/16, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Michael Dengsavang raises several challenges to the trial court’s denial of his Machner motion. The court of appeals rejects one claim on the merits and declines to consider the rest, holding them previously abandoned.

Polk County  Human Services Dep’t v. Boe H., 2013AP1719, District 3, 1/14/13 (not recommended for publication); case activity

This appeal turns on the court of appeals’ application of the law of the case doctrine,  so it’s necessary to recap some procedural history.

After a jury found Boe mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous under the “fifth standard”, Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2.e, the circuit court committed him to the DHS for 6 months.  

State v. Gary Wieczorek, 2012AP2217-CR, District 3, 9/10/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court had previously held that Wieczorek was unlawfully seized by the police on his front porch, but the court of appeals reversed that holding and remanded the case for further proceedings. (¶¶2-4). On remand, Wieczorek again alleged the seizure was unlawful because there were no exigent circumstances.

State v. Kevin Brown, 2006 WI App 41
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶10      We first examine the trial court’s reliance on the earlier order and its determination that it was “the law of the case.” Citing Univest Corp. v. General Split Corp., 148 Wis. 2d 29, 38, 435 N.W.2d 234 (1989), Brown argues:

The law of the case doctrine is inapplicable.

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73, on certification (subsequently reversed on other grounds, State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47)
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose

Issue/Holding: Supreme court disposition of an earlier appeal via summary order is law of the case as to subsequent appeal; the order resolved a question of law despite failing to state reasons: though an affirmance of a discretionary ruling may not determine a question of law,