On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Glenn T. Zamzow, 2016 WI App 7, petition for review granted, 3/7/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 29; case activity (including briefs)

Relying on precedent predating Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), two judges of the court of appeals hold that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to suppression hearings and that the circuit court could rely on hearsay evidence in denying Zamzow’s motion to suppress. The third judge on the panel dissents, arguing the majority’s conclusion “rests upon a shaky foundation” (¶20) and “continues [the] unfortunate legacy” of pre-Crawford Confrontation Clause jurisprudence (¶23).

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2015AP591, District 1, 12/1/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The evidence in the record is sufficient to support an order for involuntary medication under § 51.61(1)(g)4(intro.) and b.

State v. Davis Kevin Lewis, 2014AP2773-CR, District 1, 12/01/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lewis (whose first name is itself a matter of dispute, (¶1 n.2)) brings three challenges to his conviction after trial; all are rejected.

State v. Cory S. Herrmann, 2015 WI App 97; case activity (including briefs)

In light of the Second Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), Wisconsin’s prohibition on the possession of a switchblade knife, § 941.24(1), is unconstitutional as applied to a person who possesses a switchblade in his or her own home.

State v. Christopher Joseph Allen, 2015 WI App 96, petition for review granted 4/7/16, affirmed, 2017 WI 7; case activity (including briefs)

How often does SCOW issue unanimous decisions for the defense these days? Not too often. So you’d think that after being reversed 7-0 in State v. Hemp, District 1 might approach §973.015, with a “once bitten, twice shy” mindset. But with this published decision, D1 seems more determined to rein in Wisconsin’s expunction statute.

State v. Joseph J. VanMeter, 2014AP1852-CR, 11/24/15, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Following the footsteps of State v. Warren, No. 2012AP1727-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI App Jan. 16, 2013), the court of appeals holds that an officer’s testimony about how a defendant performed on an HGN test is not subject to the Daubert test for the admissibility of expert testimony.

State v. Tiron Justin Grant, 2014AP2965-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court serially takes up and rejects each of Grant’s challenges to his conviction, at trial, of possessing cocaine with intent to deliver, as well as the sentencing court’s denial of ERP/SAP and CIP eligibility.

State v. Eric Christopher Bell, 2014AP2899-CR and 2014AP2900-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Bell raises two challenges to the joinder of ten counts involving five victims; the court rejects both.

State v. Larry D. Wright, 2014AP2672, District 1, 11/24/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including State’s brief)

The court of appeals rebuffs Wright’s claim that postconviction counsel was ineffective for not raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal. The court also rejects Wright’s claim that the trial court engaged in improper ex parte communication with the jury during deliberations.

Dane County DHS v. J.D., 2015AP1800, District 4, 11/19/2015 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

One of the statutory grounds for a finding of unfitness leading to termination of parental rights is the court-ordered denial of placement or visitation for at least one year. Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4). In Dane County DHS v. P. P., 2005 WI 32, 279 Wis. 2d 169, 694 N.W.2d 344, the supreme court rejected a facial challenge to this ground but left open the possibility that, as applied, it might violate substantive due process in a particular case. Per the court of appeals, this is not that case.