On Point blog, page 215 of 485
Court of appeals affirms JNOV granted to mom in TPR case
Portage County DHHS v. Shannon M., 2014AP1259-1260, 10/2/14, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
A jury found grounds–abandonment and continuing CHIPS–to terminate Shannon’s parental rights to her children. But the circuit court became worried that the jury might have viewed Shannon’s conduct very differently if it had known that the court had improperly entered a dispositional order against her, so it granted Shannon JNOV and dismissed the petitions to terminate her rights. The Department appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Deer hunter who confessed in warden’s car was not “in custody” under Miranda
State v. Jody A. Bolstad, 2014AP915-CR, 10/2/14, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Bolstad shot a deer decoy from the window of his friend’s pick-up truck while a DNR warden was watching. Afterwards, while sitting in a DNR car, he confessed to the warden and signed a written statement. The State charged Bolstad with various game regulation violations, and he moved to suppress his statements because the warden failed to inform him of his Miranda rights. The court of appeals held that Bolstad was not “in custody,” so Miranda did not apply.
“Castle doctrine” only applies when the intruder is in your castle
State v. Charles L. Chew, 2014 WI App 116; case activity
In its first decision addressing Wisconsin’s recently adopted “castle doctrine,” § 939.48(1m), the court of appeals holds Chew wasn’t entitled to a self-defense jury instruction under the statute because the men Chew shot at were not “in” his “dwelling.”
Warrant invalidated because primary basis consisted of information the police garthered by trespassing
State v. Jeremiah R. Popp & Christopher A. Thomas, 2014 WI App 100; case activity: Popp; Thomas
The search warrant for the home shared by Popp and Thomas was invalid because the primary basis for the warrant was derived from observations made by police when they trespassed on the defendants’ property and peered into their windows.
Records that support claims defense counsel made at sentencing not enough to merit resentencing or sentence modification
State v. Anthony Herman Williams, 2014AP447-CR & 2014AP448-CR, District 1, 9/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2014AP447-CR; 2014AP448-CR
Cell phone records that corroborate a claim Williams’s trial lawyer made at sentencing regarding contact between Williams and the victims don’t show that the sentencing court relied on inaccurate information because the records do little to corroborate the contact or support Williams’s version of events.
Recantation evidence didn’t satisfy newly-discovered evidence test
State v. Landris T. Jines, 2014AP132, District 1, 9/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The recantations of Bartee, the victim, and Griffin, another state’s witness, don’t satisfy the newly-discovered evidence test because they are not sufficiently corroborated. Nor is there a reasonable probability a different result would be reached in a new trial with the recantation evidence.
Presence of unfamiliar car in driveway of a colleague’s house didn’t provide reasonable suspicion for stop
State v. Benjamin P. Lind, 2014AP749-CR, District 3, 9/30/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Officer’s observation of an unfamiliar vehicle entering the driveway of a home of a local police officer at 1:36 a.m. did not provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the vehicle.
Weaving within lane justified traffic stop
City of Tomah v. Steven Seward, 2014AP735, District 4, 9/25/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, the court of appeals holds there was reasonable suspicion to stop Seward based on a police officer’s observations of his weaving within his lane of travel for about one mile at 11:34 p.m.
Newly discovered evidence about police officer’s misconduct not enough to get new trial
State v. Adrian A. Starks, 2013AP93, District 4, 9/25/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
New information that one of the officers who testified at Starks’s trial violated department policy on dozens of occasions (three of which occurred in Starks’s case) and ultimately resigned after an internal investigation didn’t entitle Starks to a new trial because there isn’t a reasonable probability that a jury considering the new evidence together with the old evidence would reach a different verdict.
Improper closing argument earns prosecutor an OLR referral, but doesn’t get defendant a new trial
State v. Jacob G. Mayer, 2013AP2758-CR, District 2, 9/24/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
The trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of voluntary intoxication and the prosecutor’s improper closing argument were harmless, but the latter is egregious enough to cause the court of appeals to refer the prosecutor to OLR.