On Point: K. Standards of Review

State v. Laverne Ware, Jr., 2021 WI App 83; case activity (including briefs)

When the parties filed their initial briefs in this appeal, it was a community-caretaker case. But during briefing, the Supreme Court decided Caniglia v. Strom, which made clear that this doctrine doesn’t permit searches in the home (in the process invalidating some Wisconsin cases). So now–as the Caniglia concurrences foretold–it’s instead a case about the “emergency aid exception.”

State v. X.S., 2021AP419, review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion, granted 10/18/21, case activity

Issues:

1. Whether the court of appeals erroneously exercised its discretion in denying “Xander’s” motion for reconsideration less than 24 hours after it was filed without any explanation?

2. Whether a juvenile who stipulates to the prosecutive merit of a delinquency petition is estopped from presenting any evidence to contradict factual averments in the petition even when those facts do not negate probable cause for the charged offense?

3. Whether the court of appeals erroneously applied the discretionary standard of review?

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from State’s petition for review)

1. How does a court consider the theory of guilt in an evidence sufficiency claim when an inconsistency exists between a jury instruction and verdict?

2. Must a court accept a jury’s resolution of any vagueness in testimony as jury credibility and weight determinations and must a court then adopt the reasonable inferences that a jury may have drawn from the evidence?

3. Has Coughlin, as the defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, met his heavy burden to overcome the great deference this Court gives to the jury and its verdict to satisfy that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State and the convictions, was insufficient to sustain the 15 guilty verdicts relating to his sexual assaults of John Doe 2 and John Doe 3?

State v. X.S., 2021AP419, 7/20/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Xander (a pseudonym) shot several people in a well-known incident at the Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa. The juvenile court concluded that it was the right forum for the case and denied the state’s motion to waive the matter into adult criminal court under WIS. STAT. § 938.18(5). The court of appeals reverses. This is a one-judge decision and so it makes no binding law. What it does instead is pay brief lip service to the deference it owes the lower court’s discretionary call before going on to recite–with a prosecutorial tenor–its own view of how that discretion ought to have been exercised.

State v. M.C., 2021AP301, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decsion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in deciding to waive M.C. into adult court on a sexual assault charge, so the waiver is reversed and the case remanded for the circuit court to exercise its discretion properly.

State v. M.T.W., 2021AP420-FT, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Information that goes to a witness’s character for truthfulness doesn’t meet the standard under § 48.46(1) for newly discovered evidence that warrants a new trial.

State v. Juan J. Castillo, 2020AP983, 6/29/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Castillo was tried for the alleged sexual assault of his five-year-old cousin when he was sixteen. He wished to call an expert to testify about the factors that can affect the reliability of a child’s allegations of assault; the circuit court disallowed this testimony. The court of appeals upholds the circuit court’s ruling on that matter, concluding that the testimony didn’t “fit” the facts of this case. But the court does order a new trial, holding the circuit court should have granted the mistrial Castillo requested after the now-8-year-old alleged victim “blurted out” on the stand that Castillo had assaulted three other girls, and after his sister gave testimony suggesting he was incarcerated at the time of trial.

State v. M.D.M., 2021 WI App 42; case activity

In 2014, the State filed petitions charging M.D.M., a juvenile, with multiple counts of delinquency. He was found incompetent but likely to regain, so the court suspended these cases. In 2016, the State filed a new petition charging M.D.M. with 1 count of delinquency. This time M.D.M. was found competent to proceed, so the State wanted to resume prosecution of his 2014 case as well. This published opinion establishes the procedure for recalling a case after a juvenile regains competency.

State v. Alijouwon T. Watkins, 2019AP1996-CR, 5/27/21, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Watkins with several crimes stemming from a domestic violence call: these included escape and battery to one of the police officers who arrested him. While Watkins was in jail, the state charged him with three more crimes related to his alleged attempts to secure perjured testimony about the earlier incident and, the state said, have the arresting officer/alleged victim killed.

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.