On Point blog, page 109 of 485
If 2 guys have sex with a woman who becomes pregnant, both better assume parental responsibility
E.M.K. v. Z.T.R., 2018AP1896, District 2, 5/1/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
That’s the upshot of this court of appeals decision. Before terminating a biological father’s parental rights, there must be a finding that he “failed to assume parental responsibility” under §48.415(6). But what if there is a dispute about whether he is actually the biological father of the child? The court of appeals holds that if only one other guy was having sex with the mother when she became pregnant then the unverified, biological father had “reason to believe” he was in fact the father and should assume parental responsibility for the child.
Court of appeals addresses its jurisdiction over order denying only part of a postconviction motion
State v. Sean R. Wolfe and State v. Donald Ray Ward, 2019 WI App 32; case activity here and here .
¶1 We hold that under established principles of finality, when a circuit court denies a RULE 809.30 postconviction motion in part and grants the motion in part such that further proceedings are required, an appeal cannot be taken until those further proceedings are completed. Because the judgments of conviction and the circuit court orders from which these appeals are taken do not dispose of the entire matter in litigation between the parties, we lack jurisdiction.
April 2019 publication list
On April 24, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following decisions:
Winnebago County v. C.S., 2019 WI App 16 (involuntary medication of committed prisoners)
Brown County Human Services v. B.P. & T.F., 2019 WI App 18 (requirements for pleading “abandonment” under § 48.415; summary judgment reversed)
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State v. Alberto E. Rivera, 2018AP952-CR, 4/30, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).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.