On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Ryan C. Diehl, 2020 WI App 16; case activity (including briefs)

At Diehl’s trial for operating with a blood-alcohol content exceeding .02, the state asked the arresting officer and Diehl himself multiple questions that invited the jury to infer he had multiple OWI convictions. Because these questions were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to them, and Diehl is entitled to a new trial.

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.

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.

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))

State v. James L. Jackson, 2020 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)

Jackson pleaded to the crime of failing to give updated information to the sex offender registry. The information at issue was the fact that he’d created a Facebook account and email address. This ran afoul of Wis. Stat. § 301.45(2)(a)6m., which requires a registrant to turn over (among other things) the “name or number of every electronic mail account the person uses” and “the name and Internet address of every public or private Internet profile the person creates, uses, or maintains.” On appeal, he argues that this provision unconstitutionally burdens his right to engage in anonymous speech.

On December 18, 2019, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related cases:

State v. Brian L. Halverson, 2019 WI App 66 (incarceration is no longer custody per se under Miranda)

State v. Jeffrey L. Ionescu, 2019 WI App 68 (“warm” pursuit is as good as “hot” pursuit, at least in this case)

Dane County D.H.S. v. J.R., 2020 WI App 5; case activity

J.R.’s children were placed outside the home pursuant to two CHIPS cases. During the placement, the legislature changed the 4th element for the “continuing CHIPS” ground for termination of parental rights. When the County petitioned to terminate J.R.’s rights, it proceeded under the amended statute. J.R. objected to the retroactive application of the amended statute on statutory and due process grounds.

On November 20, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60 (a riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle for purposes of the OWI statute)

State v. Larry W. Olson, 2019 WI App 61 (the 72-hour filing deadline for a  petition to revoke NGI conditional release is mandatory)

State v.

State v. Brian L. Halverson, 2019 WI App 66; petition for review granted 3/17/20; affirmed 1/29/21; case activity (including briefs)

Until now, Wisconsin held that a person who is interviewed by law enforcement while incarcerated is per se in custody and thus must receive a Miranda warning. State v. Armstrong, 223 Wis. 2d 331, 588 N.W. 2d 606 (1999). This published court of appeals’ decision holds that the SCOTUS effectively overturned Armstrong in Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012). Going forward, courts must determine whether an inmate is in custody by analyzing the totality of the circumstances surrounding his interrogation.

State v. Jeffrey L. Ionescu, 2019 WI App 68; case activity (including briefs)

A homeowner told police that he found a burglar in his car and saw him run west across his yard. About 10 minutes later, officer and a trained tracking dog headed in that direction for about 30 minutes. The officer saw footprints, and the dog detected scent, off and on along the way. Eventually they reached the yard of burglar’s mother and entered it without a warrant. She let them enter her home where they found Ionescu. Was this pursuit cold, warm or hot?