On Point blog, page 169 of 263
Court of appeals reinstates charges against capitol protester
State v. William M. Gruber, 2014AP1069, 2/5/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
The court of appeals bills this as “a State Capitol protester case with a twist.” The “twist” is that Gruber was cited for disorderly conduct under one administrative rule whereas other protesters were cited for lacking a permit under another rule. So when the circuit court dismissed the charges in this case based on the reasoning used in the “no permit” cases, it erred.
Circuit court lacked subjected matter jurisdiction to hear OWI, first offense
City of Stevens Point v. Jared T. Lowery, 2014AP742, 2/5/15; District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
It seems the City didn’t know of Lowery’s two prior OWI convictions when it charged him with, and obtained a conviction for, OWI first under a city ordinance. Only the State (not a city) may prosecute someone for OWI, third offense. So the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try and convict Lowery for OWI first.
Deja vu: McNeely-based challenge to blood draw falls to good-faith exception
State v . Randall L. Shepherd, 2014AP962, 2/5/15, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); click here for docket and briefs
A another day. Another challenge to a pre-McNeely warrantless blood draw bites the dust.
Request for driver’s ID was reasonable extension of stop
State v. Rachel L. Huck, 2014AP2190-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Having stopped a vehicle on reasonable suspicion that the registered owner had a suspended license, the officer was entitled to continue the detention to ask the driver—who clearly wasn’t the registered owner—for his driver’s license.
Statute of limitations barred re-prosecution of OWI that was improperly charged as a first offense
State v. Benjamin J. Strohman, 2014AP1265-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for prosecution); case activity (including briefs)
Rejecting the state’s arguments that the statute of limitation had been tolled, the court of appeals holds the state could not re-charge Strohman for an OWI offense that was improperly treated as a first offense because the time limit for charging the offense had expired.
Once again, a McNeely-based challenge to a blood draw falls to the good-faith exception
State v. Tyler M. Pasch, 2014AP1193-CR, District 3, 2/3/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Another day, another decision holding the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to blood drawn without a warrant or exigent circumstances because the blood draw happened before Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013), effectively overruled State v. Bohling,
Defendant forfeited right to counsel of choice; failed to show deficient performance
State v. Annette Morales-Rodriguez, 2014AP1438-CR, District 1, 2/3/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs
A defendant must assert that she was denied her constitutional right to the counsel of her choice before trial, not after. Also, an attorney clears the “deficient performance” prong of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where he withdraws as counsel based on a possible conflict even if the client wants him as her lawyer and will waive the conflict.
Trial court is free to make suggestions and lecture defendant during plea baragaining
State v. Lavonte M. Price, 2014AP1189-CR, District 1, 2/13/15 (not recommended for publication); click here for briefs
This decision examines the line between a trial court’s active participation in the plea negotiation process, which Wisconsin law prohibits, and trial court’s comments, suggestions and lectures, which are permitted under Wisconsin law. What the trial court did here was just fine, said the court of appeals.
Termination of dominatrix’s parental rights upheld despite jury instruction error
State . Michelle M., 2014ap1539, District 1; 1/27/15 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
In this TPR case, a circuit court instructed a jury using the version of WIS JI-Children 346 that allows consideration of whether a mother has exposed her child to a hazardous living environment. The court should have given the prior version, which did not mention this consideration. According to the court of appeals, the jury could consider the point whether the instruction explicitly mentioned it or not.
No error in limiting cross examination and rejecting offer of proof about FSTs at refusal hearing
State v. Kyle R. Christoffersen, 2014AP1282, District 2, 1/28/15 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The judge at Christoffersen’s refusal hearing didn’t violate Christoffersen’s due process rights when it limited cross-examination about the arresting officer’s training on, and administration of, field sobriety tests and refused to allow Christoffersen to make an offer of proof by questioning the officer. (¶¶5-7, 14).