On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

Waukesha County DH&HS v. K.R.G., 2016AP222, 4/20/16, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals here holds that a mom’s failure to follow court orders and failure to make court appearances were egregious enough to justify a default finding of grounds for terminating her parental rights even though she asserted a “desire” and “determination” to participate in the proceeding.

State v. M.K., 2015AP2098, District 1, 4/19/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

While the second (and final) extension of M.K.’s original CHIPS dispositional order listed only one of the three conditions M.K. had to meet for return of her son, the original order and first extension listed all three, and that’s good enough in the eyes of the court of appeals to satisfy the requirements of § 48.356(2).

State v. Gary F. Lemberger, 2015AP1452-CR, 4/14/2016, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 10/11/2016, affirmed, 2017 WI 39; case activity (including briefs)

A breathalyzer test is a Fourth Amendment search, and state case law holds that the state may not invite a jury to view a defendant’s refusal to consent to a search as evidence of guilt. So, can a prosecutor argue that a defendant’s refusal to take a breathalyzer shows his guilt? Don’t look to this case for an answer.

Jefferson County Department of Human Services v. J.V., 2015AP2622, 2623, & 2624, 4/14/2016, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

J.V. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her three younger children, arguing the circuit court erred in excluding evidence that she had succeeded in having her eldest child returned to her.

State v. Andrew G. Chitwood, 2016 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)

In theory, Wisconsin’s new test for the admissibility of expert testimony “is flexible but has teeth.” State v. Giese, ¶19. In practice, it’s flexible and has dentures. Literally every Daubert challenge litigated on appeal since Wis. Stat. §907.02 became effective has failed. The court of appeals has held that expert testimony regarding the retrograde extrapolation of a person’s blood alcohol concentration passes Daubert (See Giese). So does a doctor’s testimony based solely on his personal experience with prenatal and delivery case (see Seifert). So does a social worker’s testimony based solely on her observations of behavior in child abuse victims (see Smith). And now with Chitwood so does expert testimony by a drug recognition evaluator.

State v. C.R.R./State v. M.R., 2015AP1771 & 2015AP1772, District 3, 4/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects various challenges to orders terminating the parental rights C.R.R. and M.R., the mother and father, respectively, of A.M.R.

State v. Lazaro Ozuna, 2015AP1877-CR, 4/13/16, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 9/13/16, affirmed 2017 WI 64, ; case activity (including briefs)

Even though DOC discharged Ozuna from probation, he didn’t successfully complete his sentence for purposes of the expungement statute because he was cited for underage drinking while he was on probation and therefore violated the court-imposed probation condition that he not consume any alcohol.

State v. Michael A. Durham, 2015AP1978-CR, 4/12/2016, District 3 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police were dispatched in response to a 6:30 p.m. phone call from a neighbor about unintelligible yelling and “banging” that shook the walls of Durham’s residence. (¶2). After knocking and ringing the doorbell and receiving no response, police simply entered the house, guns drawn, and proceeded toward the stairs, where they encountered Durham. (¶¶3-5). The officers ordered Durham to show his hands, he didn’t, and they tasered him. (¶6). He was charged with resisting an officer, unsuccessfully moved to suppress evidence obtained via the warrantless search of his home, and was convicted at trial. (¶1). The court of appeals here reverses the conviction because the suppression motion should have been granted.

Voces De La Frontera, Inc. v. David A. Clarke, Jr., 2016 WI App 39, petition for review granted 6/15/16, reversed, 2017 WI 16; case activity (including briefs)

Voces De La Frontera submitted an open records request for all immigration detainer forms that Sheriff David Clarke received during a 15-month period. Clarke supplied the forms but redacted 5 categories of information from them, including the person’s nationality and immigration status. So Voces sought, and received, a circuit court writ of mandamus ordering Clarke to produce the records. The court of appeals here affirms that writ.

Outagamie County v. Adam B., 2015AP718, 4/12/16, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court neglected to specify which of the 5 statutory “dangerousness” standards in §51.20(1)(a)2.a-e supported the Ch. 51 commitment of Adam B. But that did not trouble the court of appeals. Given the “de novo” standard of review, it could (and did) decide for itself which statutory “dangerousness” test the facts satisfied.