On Point blog, page 2 of 214

COA: State does not need to prove intent to conceal victim’s homicide to prove defendant hid corpse with intent to conceal a crime.

State v. Roger A. Minck, 2022AP2292-CR, 5/28/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In a case of first impression, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that hiding a corpse with intent to conceal a crime under Wis. Stat. § 940.11(2) requires the State to prove the defendant  intended to conceal any crime, not a crime related to the victim’s homicide.  The COA found the evidence sufficient to affirm the jury’s verdict finding Roger Minck guilty of hiding a corpse.

Read full article >

COA holds that allocution statements are admissible following plea withdrawal

State v. Daniel J. Rejholec, 2023AP2192-CR, 5/28/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In a consequential appeal, COA holds that allocution statements are admissible evidence after a plea has been withdrawn.

Read full article >

March Publication Order

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication.

Read full article >

In published decision, COA holds that corporation counsel is not a party under 48.13 when they are not a petitioner

S.G. v. Wisconsin DCF, 2024AP472, 4/3/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a unique CHIPS appeal, COA clarifies the proper role of corporation counsel when another party files a CHIPS petition.

Read full article >

Publication Orders for January and February

In January and February, COA ordered several cases published which are relevant to our practice:

Read full article >

COA holds that difference between “L meth” and “D meth” does not create a defense to RCS prosecution

State v. Walter L. Johnson, 2024AP79-CR, 2/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In a case resolving a hot issue for OWI litigators, COA rejects challenges to an RCS prosecution based on the chemical difference between “L meth”–found in certain nasal decongestant sprays–and “D meth,” which is found in illicit street drugs.

Read full article >

D4 issues another speedy trial decision recommended for publication, holds that COVID-related delays should not weigh against the state

State v. Cordero D. Coleman, 2023AP2414-CR, 12/27/24, District IV (recommended for publication), case activity

COA holds that a 32-month delay in trying Coleman did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial where the COVID-19 pandemic was the primary cause of the delay. In doing so, COA identifies a new category of reasons for state-attributed delay, “which encompasses those delays that are caused by a reasonable government response to a legitimate public emergency” and holds such delays should not be weighed against the state. (¶56).

Read full article >

COA finds consent to blood draw valid in a detailed discussion of Wisconsin’s implied consent statutes recommended for publication.

State v. Christopher A. Gore, 2023AP169-CR, 1/7/25, District III (recommended for publication), case activity

The Court of Appeals held, in a decision recommended for publication, that Christopher Gore’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent, and the officer’s statement that he would seek to obtain a warrant if Gore did not consent did not invalidate his consent.

Read full article >

Catching up on COA’s publication orders

In October, November and December, COA ordered several cases published which are relevant to our practice:

Read full article >

COA: Circuit court may use defendant’s federal disability payments to assess ability to pay restitution.

State v. Eric J. Joling, 2023AP1023-CR, 12/11/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Federal law prohibits subjecting social security disability insurance payments (SSDI) to “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.”  42 U.S.C. § 407(a).  In a decision recommended for publication, the Court of Appeals held that a circuit court may nevertheless use a defendant’s SSDI payments to calculate the ability to pay restitution. 

Read full article >