On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

On October 25, 2023, the court of appeals ordered publication of two criminal law related decisions:

State v. Troy Allen Lanning, 2023 WI App 52 (holding that a pending criminal prosecution means civil forfeiture proceeding need not be held within 60 days)

State v. Aaron L. Jacobs, 2023 WI App 53 (rejecting state’s expansive bail jumping prosecution and establishing a two-part test where a defendant was previously released from custody on bond,

Chippewa County Department of Human Services v. T.M.J., 2023AP463 & 2023AP464, 10/24/23, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In another fact-dependent decision, COA affirms the circuit court’s order terminating parental rights with respect to 2 children.

Attorney Thomas L. Potter v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, the Honorable Kori Ashley, Presiding, 2022AP1396-CR, 10/17/23, District I (not eligible for publication); case activity

Although the prosecutor in this case may have conceptualized his decision to defy a court order as an act of civil disobedience necessary to preserve a challenge for appeal, COA disagrees and therefore affirms the circuit court’s order finding him in contempt.

Sauk County D.H.S. v. R.K.M., 2023AP912, 10/12/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.K.M. raised a variety of arguments seeking to challenge the often cited “decompensation” theory for extending a chapter 51 commitment where the subject has (1) made substantial progress while under commitment, (2) engaged in no recent dangerous behavior, and (3) is generally compliant with medication and treatment provided under commitment. However, his challenge runs into the buzzsaw of fears of decompensation and “recurrence of his symptoms.” (Op., ¶¶6-7).

State v. John J. Drachenberg, 2022AP2060-CR, 10/12/23, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a decision recommended for publication, COA clarifies that the “execution” of a search warrant does not include forensic analysis that can occur weeks or months later. Accordingly, even though those activities may occur outside the statutory window, this does not create a statutory (as opposed to constitutional) argument for suppression.

State v. S.A., 2023AP1288-1292, 10/10/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a fact-dependent decision, COA affirms the circuit court’s order terminating parental rights with respect to 5 children.

State v. Marqus G. Phillips, 2023AP450, 10/4/23, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

That the Constitution does not guarantee an “error-free trial” is an unnecessary response to a straw man when a defendant seeks a new trial after it is discovered that the second of two state’s witnesses was found to have violated the circuit court’s witness sequestration order. It’s also an easy out where the circuit court’s lack of prejudice determination in denying a mistrial claim is reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review.

On September 27, 2023, the court of appeals ordered publication of one criminal law related decision:

State v. John R. Brott, 2023 WI App 45 (mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography is mandatory)

State v. Bryson Keith Williams, 2023AP838, 10/4/23, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Applying the familiar test for assessing the adequacy of the officer’s reading of the implied consent warnings, COA agrees that Williams’ refusal was unlawful.

Winnebago County v. D.E.S., 2023AP460, 9/20/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

This is a nice case to know, both for its careful, thorough analysis of a common ch. 51 problem–commitments based entirely or extensively on hearsay–and its collection of other cases analyzing the same issue. The sole witness at D.E.S. (“Dennis”)’s extension hearing was a Dr. Anderson, who had witnessed none of the behaviors she relied on to conclude that Dennis was dangerous, instead reading them from his institutional records. Over objection, the trial court relied on them anyway. The court of appeals now reverses the commitment because absent the hearsay, there was no evidence tending to show that Dennis would be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.