On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA upholds statute prohibiting possession of a firearm while intoxicated despite State’s failure to adequately litigate matter in circuit court
State v. Bernabe Gonzalez, 2024AP358-CR, 5/6/25, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
In what we believe is COA’s first foray into the vexing world of firearm regulation post-Bruen and Rahimi, COA holds that Wisconsin’s statute prohibiting intoxicated persons from “going armed” passes muster under an originalist legal analysis.
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 constitutional challenge to TPR dispositional statute; holds that parent is not entitled to new dispositional hearing applying preponderance of the evidence burden
E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.
COA opts for defense-friendly reading of Marsy’s Law in published juvenile defense win!
State v. M.L.J.N.L., 2021AP1437, 2/28/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In one of our first published decisions to address the impact of Marsy’s Law, COA accepts the agreed-upon position of both parties that Marsy’s Law does not alter the framework for assessing requests for juvenile restitution under § 938.34(5)(a).
If you are challenging the constitutionality of a statute, read this decision
SCOW recently rejected a challenge to Wisconsin’s statutory cap on noneconomic damages for victims of medical malpractice. See Mayo v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund, 2018 WI 78. If you are challenging the constitutionality of a Wisconsin statute, you may want to take a careful look at this decision. The justices appear to have split over the proper standard for judging the constitutionality of a statute.
Statute prohibiting switchblades doesn’t apply to possession by a person at home
State v. Cory S. Herrmann, 2015 WI App 97; case activity (including briefs)
In light of the Second Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), Wisconsin’s prohibition on the possession of a switchblade knife, § 941.24(1), is unconstitutional as applied to a person who possesses a switchblade in his or her own home.
SCOW: Six-person jury for involuntary mental commitment survives equal protection challenge
Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity
Majority opinion by Justice Crooks; concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson; additional concurrence by Justice Ziegler (joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman)
The issues in this case spring from State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 318-319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995)(“persons committed under Chapters 51 and 980 are similarly situated for purposes of equal protection comparison) and State v.