On Point blog, page 108 of 484
Admission of other acts evidence and sufficiency of evidence for homicide conviction affirmed
State v. Alberto E. Rivera, 2018AP952-CR, 4/30, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).
The State charged Rivera with a homicide and an attempted homicide that occurred in 2015. Before trial, it moved to introduce “other acts” evidence–a homicide that Rivera committed in 1997. The trial court tentatively denied the motion. But then Rivera’s counsel made a “strategic” decision to offer the evidence as part of his defense. So, as you might guess, the appellate challenge regarding the admission of this evidence failed.
Driver’s silence constituted refusal; subpoenaed urine test results were admissible
State v. Gerald J. Vanderhoef, 2016AP2052-CR, District 1, 4/30/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Vanderhoef’s silence in response to the “Informing the Accused” form constituted a refusal to consent to a chemical test, so the subsequent blood draw was unlawful. However, the state subpoenaed the results of his urine test, and that evidence was admissible.
Court of appeals rejects jury pool and Batson challenges
State v. Michael Exhavier Dunn, 2018AP783-CR, 4/30/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).
The lead issues in this appeal are whether the jury pool for Dunn’s trial represented a fair cross section of the community and whether Dunn was denied equal protection when the DA struck 2 of the 3 African-Americans from the 30-person jury pool for his case.
OWI arrest automatically permits search of vehicle and all containers within it
State v. Mose B. Coffee, 2019 WI App 25; affirmed 6/5/20; case activity (including briefs)
This published decision should make for an interesting petition for review. The court of appeals rejects a prior unpublished opinion, State v. Hinderman, to hold:
¶13 . . . [W]hen an officer lawfully arrests a driver for OWI, even if alcohol is the only substance detected in relation to the driver, a search of the interior of the vehicle, including any containers therein, is lawful because it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the offense of OWI might be found. Thus, the search of Coffee’s vehicle in this case was lawful and the circuit court properly denied his suppression motion.
TPR court erred in granting partial summary judgment at grounds phase
Brown County DHHS v. L.F.H., Sr., 2019AP145, District 3, 4/23/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The County filed a petition to terminate L.F.H.’s parental rights based on a continuing denial of his periods of physical placement or visitation with his son, Leon (a pseudonym). The circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment at the grounds phase, but that was error because the County failed to prove the CHIPS dispositional order satisfied the requirements of § 48.415(4).
TPR court had insufficient information to conclude it had jurisdiction
J.P. v. A.P., 2018AP1775 through 2018AP1778, District 4, 4/18/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this unusual case, the court of appeals agrees with a parent in a TPR proceeding that the circuit court may not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because of an order issued in another state governs custody of the children.
Alleged omissions from search warrant application didn’t invalidate warrant
State v. Calvin Lee Brown, 2018AP766-CR, District 1, 4/9/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Brown challenged a search warrant that was executed at his home, arguing the police omitted information about J.R.R., an informant who was cited in the warrant application, and that the information provided reason to doubt J.R.R.’s credibility. The court of appeals rejects the challenge.
Exclusionary rule applies to property forfeiture actions; but so does good faith exception
State v. Michael J. Scott, et al., 2019 WI App 22; case activity (including briefs)
Applying long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the court of appeals holds that the exclusionary rule can be used to defend against a civil forfeiture complaint filed by the state. But it also holds the state should have a shot at arguing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule also applies, despite the state’s failure to assert this claim in the circuit court.
Summary judgment at TPR grounds phase reversed due to inadequate notice during CHIPS proceedings
Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., Jr., 2018AP2440 to 208AP2443, District 4, 4/4/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the grounds phase R.H.H.’s termination of parental rights proceedings, the circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of continuing denial of visitation under § 48.415(4). Not so fast, says the court of appeals.
Officer had probable cause to arrest defendant for OWI after a 1-minute interaction with him
State v. Timothy Edward Curtis, 2018AP920-CR, 4/2/19, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged Curtis with a 2nd offense OWI. He moved to suppress evidence obtained after his arrest on the grounds that the officer didn’t have probable cause for the arrest in the first place. He lost in the circuit court and in the court of appeals.