On Point: 26. Sufficiency of evidence

Wood County v. J.A.B., 2025AP220, 8/21/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order for protective placement because the County did not establish that J.A.B. was so totally incapable of providing for her own care as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to herself or others.

State of Wisconsin v. Robert W. Berghuis, 2025AP134-CR, District II, 8/6/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed a jury’s guilty verdict for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, finding the evidence was sufficient that the driver operated the vehicle on a “highway” when law enforcement encountered the driver in the driver’s seat of his truck that was parked in a ditch.

Taylor County Human Services v. A.B., 2025AP633, 2025AP634, 2025AP635, 2025AP636, 7/29/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirms the circuit court’s orders terminating “Adam’s” parental rights, while emphasizing the heavy burden placed on the party seeking to overturn a jury’s verdict.

State v. Roger A. Minck, 2022AP2292-CR, 5/28/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In a case of first impression, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that hiding a corpse with intent to conceal a crime under Wis. Stat. § 940.11(2) requires the State to prove the defendant  intended to conceal any crime, not a crime related to the victim’s homicide.  The COA found the evidence sufficient to affirm the jury’s verdict finding Roger Minck guilty of hiding a corpse.

State v. Kelsy R. Wooldridge, 2022AP1927-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity

In a decision not recommended for publication, the COA reversed Kelsy Wooldridge’s conviction for possessing methamphetamine and found that no reasonable jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew a bloody syringe seized from her purse contained an unmeasurable amount of the drug.

State v. Colin R. Dowling, 2024AP524, 5/1/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA found sufficient evidence to sustain Colin Dowling’s civil forfeiture obligation for impeding traffic by driving at a slow speed.  Although Dowling argued that there were no reasonable alternatives to slowing down his Tesla to preserve its battery, the COA concluded contacting roadside assistance was a safer alternative than driving 45 miles per hour on an interstate highway where the speed limit was 70.

State v. Kimberly D. Rowe, 2022AP2122-CR, 4/22/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA considered when a collection of liquor bottles behind the counter of what appeared to be a bar becomes “intoxicating liquor” for which a license is required to possess for intended sales.  Because the State did not prove the identity of the liquid in the bottles or submit the liquid for chemical testing, the COA reversed Kimberly Rowe’s conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor with intent to sell without a license or permit, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 125.66(1).

County of Waukesha v. Jacob A. Vecitis, 2023AP919, 2/12/25, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Vecitis appeals from a judgment, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of OWI 1st, and an order denying reconsideration. COA concludes the circuit court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and affirms.

City of Rhinelander v. Zachary Tyler LaFave-LaCrosse, 2020AP1120 & 1121, 1/7/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

LaCrosse appeals pro se from the circuit court judgments, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of first-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. COA rejects all his arguments and affirms.

State v. D.Y., 2024AP710, 12/26/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Daniel” appeals from the circuit court’s order adjudicating him as a juvenile delinquent, on the basis of a second-degree sexual assault of a child offense. (¶1). He contends that the state failed to prove the intent element, specifically, sexual gratification or arousal from the contact. (¶10). The COA concludes that there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s decision and affirms.