On Point blog, page 95 of 485
Circuit court erred in admitting video statements of children under § 908.08
State v. Angel Mercado, 2020 WI App 14, petition for review granted, 5/19/20; reversed 1/20/20; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals orders a new trial for Mercado on the grounds the circuit court erred in admitting the video statements of three children who accused him of sexually assaulting them. The circuit court didn’t comply with the requirements of § 908.08(2) and (3) in admitting the videos, and the videos also weren’t admissible under the residual hearsay exception or as prior inconsistent statements.
Ban on firearm silencers is constitutional
State v. Thomas Michael Barrett, 2020 WI App 13; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rejects Barrett’s facial and void-for-vagueness challenges to Wisconsin’s prohibition on firearm silencers, § 941.298.
Consent to draw blood was voluntary
State v. Justin T. Kane, 2018AP1885-CR, District 4, 2/6/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Kane’s consent to a blood draw after his arrest for OWI was voluntary under all the circumstances.
January 2020 publication list
On January 29, 2020, the court of appeals ordered publication in the following criminal law related cases:
State v. James L. Jackson, Jr., 2020 WI App 4 (requiring internet identifiers of sex offender registrants doesn’t violate First Amendment)
Dane County DHS v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5 (rejecting an “as applied” challenge to amended § 48.415(2)(a))
COA upholds decision to make juvenile register as sex offender
State v. D.I.G., 2019AP855, 2/5/2020, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The juvenile here was found delinquent for sexual contact with his younger sister. He moved the court for a stay of registration under State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, 272 Wis. 2d 22, 682 N.W.2d 1. The court declined to stay registration, disagreeing with the expert assessment the juvenile presented. As you might expect, the court of appeals affirms this discretionary decision.
TPR defense win! COA sees material issues of fact, reverses summary judgment on abandonment
Racine County Human Services Department v. S.J.A., 2019AP2160 & 2161, 2/5/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
It would be interesting to see the briefs in this case, but since it’s a TPR, they’re not online. What we can see is the opinion, which shows commendable (and unfortunately uncommon) attention to detail. It’s easy to imagine a glib, slapdash affirmance of this summary judgment against the parent in a TPR; we don’t get one though. Instead we see a searching review of what was proved and what was not, and a (really all too uncommon) reversal.
Lack of connection between custody and crime considered at sentencing dooms credit request
State v. Camron Rufus Spencer, 2019AP912-CR & 2019AP913-CR, District 1, 1/28/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including state’s brief)
Spencer’s custody leading up to his sentencing was not factually connected to the crimes for which he was sentenced, so he isn’t entitled to sentence credit for that time.
Officer complied with implied consent law
State v. Anthony J. Madland, 2019AP146-CR, District 3, 1/28/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Madland asserted that he requested an alternative chemical test under § 343.305 and that the officer who read the “informing the accused” form to him misled him as to his right to request an alternative test. The court of appeals rejects the claims in light of the circuit court’s fact findings.
Restitution challenge forfeited
State v. Michael S. Coleman, 2019AP1999-CR, District 4, 1/30/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Coleman appealed the restitution ordered for the damage he did to a squad car by striking his head against the cage inside and kicking the door. (¶2). But his challenges are forfeited for failure to raise them in the circuit court.
COA: “Do you think that is a manly thing to do” didn’t reflect improper sentencing factor of gender
State v. Edward L. Body, Sr., 2019AP836, 1/22/20, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Body appeals the sentence he received after the revocation of his probation. He claims the circuit court erred in considering his gender and unproven allegations contained in the PSI. He also argues the sentence–one year in jail for a repeater disorderly conduct–is unduly harsh. The court of appeals rejects all three claims.