On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. John E. Meddaugh, 2011AP237-CR, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Meddaugh: Theodore Perlick Molinari; case activity

¶9        Based on the totality of the circumstances, we agree with the circuit court that Sturino put forth specific, articulable facts which warranted the stop when considered with the inferences from those facts.  Sturino testified that shortly after hearing tires screech, he observed Meddaugh’s vehicle “fishtail.”  Fishtailing,

State v. Timothy D. Moseley, 2011AP892-CR, District 1, 5/1/12 

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Moseley: Michael J. Steinle; case activity

Moseley’s contention, that he qualified his written consent to search with an oral limitation, was rejected by the trial court as a matter of credibility; that finding of fact is now affirmed:

¶18      The trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of witnesses.  

State v. Allen K. Umentum, 2011AP2622-CR. District 3, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Umentum: Roberta A. Heckes; case activity

Under a local, Brown County “standing order,” all in-custody defendants appearing at jury trial were required, without particularized demonstration of need, to wear a non-visible stun belt. The courthouse had no screening checkpoints, and any defendant was entitled to relief from the order “for good cause shown.”

Trempealeau County v. Charles O., 2011AP2794, District 3, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Charles O.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The court rejects Charles O.’s argument that the evidence fell short of the “fifth-standard” showing of dangerousness, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, ¶14, 255 Wis. 2d 359, 647 N.W.2d 851:

¶11      When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,

State v. Elizabeth M., 2012AP454, District 1, 5/1/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Elizabeth M.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity

The court rejects Elizabeth M.’s argument that the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in favor of terminating of parental rights:

¶30      Basically, Elizabeth M. argues for a second chance.  She testified that she now wants to raise John G., even though she:  (1) is still on probation;

court of appeals certification, review granted, 6/13/12; for Leilani Neumann: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity; for Dale Neumann: Stephen L. Miller; case activity

Reckless Homicide and “Faith Healing” as Substitute for Medical Treatment

Convicted of reckless homicide, § 940.06(1), in the death of their daughter for failing to obtain medical treatment, the Neumanns raise various issues relating to interplay with the right to rely on prayer as treatment,

State v. Jonathan Phillips, 2010AP1490, District 4, 4/26/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Phillips: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; originally recommended for publication, changed per order 5/1/12

Although admittedly “inconsistent” in the way it defines “mental disorder,” when read “as a whole,” the pattern jury instruction for ch. 980 commitments (Wis JI—Criminal 2502) adequately conveys the required nexus between mental disorder and serious difficulty controlling behavior.

court of appeals publication orders, 4/25/12

On Point posts from this list:

2012 WI App 42 La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County

2012 WI App 46 State v. Lamont L. Travis

2012 WI App 47 State v. Matthew R. Steffes

2012 WI App 48 State v. Dennis R. Thiel

2012 WI App 49 Village of McFarland v.

State v. Shawn M. Klingelhoets, 2012 WI App 55 (recommended for publication); for Klingelhoets: Robert R. Henak; case activity

Intentionally Mistreating Animal, Resulting in Death, §§ 951.02 and 951.18(1) – Intent Element 

Intentionally mistreating an animal, resulting in the animal’s death, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 951.02 and 951.18(1), doesn’t require intent to kill:

¶17      In sum, the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 951.18(1) does not require a defendant to have intentionally mutilated,

State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2011AP2864-CRAC, District 2, 4/18/12, WSC rev granted 11/14/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Johnson: Mark D.   Richards, Michael F. Hart, Craig S. Powell, Geoffrey R. Misfeldt; case activity

Shiffra-Green Procedure – Privileged Records – Remedy Where Witness Declines Consent for in Camera Review 

Johnson, charged with sexual assault of his stepdaughter T.S.,