On Point blog, page 190 of 488
Evidence sufficient, evidentiary calls upheld
State v. Davis Kevin Lewis, 2014AP2773-CR, District 1, 12/01/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.
Statute prohibiting switchblades doesn’t apply to possession by a person at home
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.
Expunction: Not quite the “fresh start” that Hemp advertised
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.
Officer’s testimony regarding HGN test is lay, not expert, opinion
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Following the footsteps of State v. Warren, No. 2012AP1727-CR, unpublished slip op.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.
Evidentiary challenges spurned; ERP/CIP ineligibility upheld
State v. Tiron Justin Grant, 2014AP2965-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.
Court okays joinder of sex crimes involving five victims
State v. Eric Christopher Bell, 2014AP2899-CR and 2014AP2900-CR, District 1, 11/24/2015 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.
Challenge to postconviction counsel’s representation fails
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.
As-applied substantive due process challenge to TPR ground rejected
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.
Evidence didn’t establish EMT was authorized to do OWI blood draw
State v. Patrick K. Kozel, 2015AP656-CR, District 4, 11/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/7/16, reversed, 2017 WI 3; case activity (including briefs)
The results of a blood draw done by an EMT after Kozel was arrested for OWI were inadmissible because the State failed to prove that the blood draw was conducted by a “person acting under the direction of a physician,” as required by § 343.305(5)(b).
Child welfare bureau’s failures don’t invalidate TPR based on failure to assume parental responsibility
State v. N.J., 2015AP1477 & 2015AP1478, District 1, 11/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The order terminating N.J.’s parental rights based on her failure to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6) was not invalidated by any failures by the Milwaukee Child Welfare Bureau to make reasonable efforts to reunite N.J. with her two children.