On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA: Prospective juror’s equivocal answers regarding bias against defendant charged with sexually assaulting child not sufficient to overcome presumption of impartiality.
State v. Richard Leo Mathewson, 2022AP2124-CR, 6/17/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
COA holds that prospective juror’s equivocal answers during voir dire regarding bias against defendant charged with sexual assault of a child is not sufficient to overcome presumption that juror is impartial.
Counsel not ineffective for not striking juror
State v. Todd Brian Tobatto, 2016 WI App 28; case activity (including briefs)
The news, in this otherwise run-of-the-mill case, is the standard of review.
SCOW: Jury instruction that describes a legal theory not supported by the evidence is subject to harmless error analysis
State v. Maltese Lavele Williams, 2015 WI 75, 7/10/15; majority by Prosser: concurrence by Abrahamson; on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
All jury instruction errors are to be assessed for whether the error was harmless, the supreme court declares, including errors describing a theory of criminal culpability that was not presented to the jury or omitting a valid theory that was presented to the jury. The court therefore abrogates State v. Wulff, 207 Wis. 2d 143, 557 N.W.2d 813 (1997), which held that a jury instruction accurately setting out a legal basis for liability that does not fit evidence presented at trial should be assessed for whether the evidence was sufficient to support the basis for liability in the instruction.
Jury instruction wasn’t erroneous, and evidence was sufficient to sustain verdicts
State v. John D. Harris, 2014AP1292-CR, District 1, 12/23/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Harris isn’t entitled to a new trial based on alleged errors in the jury instruction for disorderly conduct, and the evidence is sufficient to support the guilty verdicts for that charge and a charge of battery.
SCOW: “threat of suicide” ground for involuntary commitment does not require articulation of plan
Outagamie v. Michael H., 2014 WI 127, 12/16/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity
Section 51.20(1)(a)2.a authorizes the involuntary commitment of a person who is “dangerous,” a test that may be met by showing recent threats of, or attempts at, suicide. This unanimous decision holds that in the right circumstances just thinking about suicide–without articulating a plan for committing it–constitutes a sufficient “threat” to satisfy the involuntary commitment statute.