On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs)

So if you’re going to drink and drive your riding mower, stay on your lawn.

On September 25, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Daniel A. Griffin, 2019 WI App 49 (circuit court properly applied Denny and Sullivan tests to exclude evidence regarding third-party perpetrator)

State v. Malcolm J. Sanders, 2019 WI App 52 (prosecutor didn’t violate Batson by striking juror who had bad experience with police)

State v. Amy Joan Zahurones, 2019 WI App 57; case activity (including briefs)

Zahurones was charged with several drug-related counts along with resisting an officer and physical abuse of a child. All the counts arose out of a single encounter with the police. She ultimately pleaded to four counts. On three of those counts she got probation, but on Count 2–the felony child-abuse count–she entered a deferred-judgment agreement with the state. The court put her on a signature bond with respect to that last count, since she wouldn’t otherwise be supervised. Over the next couple of years, Zahurones spent a total of about 9 months in jail on probation holds. Ultimately both the probation and the deferred-judgment agreement were revoked. So, does she get credit for those probation holds against her sentence on Count 2, even though she was technically on a signature bond for that count when she was in jail?

On August 28, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related cases:

State v. David Gutierrez, 2019 WI App 41 (circuit court erred in excluding evidence that DNA of other men was found on a victim’s clothing and buccal swab)

State v. Medford B. Matthews, III, 2019 WI App 44 (reversing circuit court’s conclusion that prosecutor’s charging decision was “absurd”

State v. Daniel A. Griffin, 2019 WI App 49; case activity (including briefs)

Someone killed a young child in Griffin’s home. Both Griffin and the child’s mother were present at the time. What evidence was the jury allowed to hear about who committed the crime? If you guessed “any remotely relevant evidence implicating Griffin” (whom the state had charged) and “no evidence implicating the mother” (whom it had not) then you are a scholar of Wisconsin evidentiary law.

We’re a bit slow to report this (we blame the dog days of summer), but on July 31, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Courtney C. Brown, 2019 WI App 34 (extension of stop for seat belt violation to conduct search of car was lawful)

Lueders v.

State v. Malcolm J. Sanders, 2019 WI App 52; case activity (including briefs)

Sanders is black, and the DA struck the only black jurors from serving on his case because, even though they said they could be fair, they had had prior bad experiences with police, including being the subjects of racial profiling. Judges Gundrum and Neubauer held that the DA did not discriminate. But in another “must read” dissent, Judge Reilly said:

It is a perversion of justice to accept the reasoning that because we have unfairly treated blacks (or any class of people), we can then use our wrongful acts to prevent blacks from serving on juries. Utilizing our unfair treatment of blacks as a valid “race neutral” reason to keep blacks off juries is itself discrimination. Dissent, ¶16.

State v. Medford B. Matthews, III, 2019 WI App 44; case activity (including briefs)

It’s a crime in Wisconsin to have sex with a person under 18. Specifically, it’s a misdemeanor, if that person is 16 or older—like the 17-and-a-half-year-old alleged victim here. But, it’s tough to have sex without (1) being in a private (or “secluded”) place and (2) exposing one’s genitals. And while the legislature has codified the obvious difference between having sex with,

State v. David Gutierrez, 2019 WI App 41, petition for review granted, 11/13/19, reversed in part and affirmed in part, 2020 WI 52; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court allowed the state to admit testimony that Gutierrez’s DNA wasn’t found after testing of relevant evidence state as well as testimony about why his DNA might not be found; it did not, however, allow Gutierrez to admit evidence that the DNA of other men had been found. This was error.

On June 26, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions: