On Point blog, page 1 of 1
SCOW: Threat to add new charges during trial didn’t bar the filing of those charges after mistrial
State v. James P. Killian, 2023 WI 52, 06/21/23, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The state’s threat to add new charges against Killian during a trial that ended in a mistrial didn’t expand the scope of the protection against double jeopardy to those new charges.
CHIPS proceedings not precluded by prior JIPS proceedings
Fond du Lac County DSS & W.A.B. v. W.G.B. & K.L.B., 2017AP2468, 12/5/18, District 2 (one-judge decison; ineligible for publication); case activity
W.A.B., a juvenile, was alleged to be delinquent for threatening her mother with a knife. She was found not competent to proceed, though, and so DSS filed a JIPS petition. See Wis. Stat. § 938.13(14). That petition resulted in an order placing W.A.B. outside the home, to have contact with her sister only when the family’s counselor thought it appropriate.
Counting out-of-state “zero tolerance” OWI violations as prior offenses doesn’t violate Equal Protection Clause
State v. Daniel M. Hirsch, 2014 WI App 39; case activity
The equal protection clause isn’t violated by § 343.307(1)(d)‘s differing treatment of Wisconsin and out-of-state” zero tolerance” OWI offenses (which penalize drivers under the legal drinking age who drive with any alcohol concentration).
Hirsch had two prior driver’s license suspensions for violation Illinois’s zero tolerance law. Under § 343.307(1)(d),
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review – Claim/Issue Preclusion (pre-2010 Caselaw)
Go: here.
Appellate Procedure: Raising Claim Preclusion, § 802.06(8)(b)
State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130
Issue/Holding:
¶12. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the only reasonable reading of Wis. Stat. § 802.06, as applied to certiorari proceedings, is that a party who has unsuccessfully moved to dismiss on other grounds may still seek dismissal grounded on claim preclusion at any time before the court has considered the merits of the petitioner’s claims.