On Point blog, page 25 of 262
COA says individual represented by SPD bears burden to prove indigency before court may order independent eval under § 51.20(9)(a)3.
Winnebago County v. W.I., 2022AP2095, 08/30/2023, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
In addition to the two court ordered psycholigical examinations required under § 51.20(9)(a)1., subdivision 3 provides individual’s subject to potential involuntary civil commitment “a right” to an additional psychological examination. See Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)3. If requested, the cost of the examination is either (1) at the individual’s expense or (2) “if indigent and with approval of the court hearing the petition, at the reasonable expense of the individual’s county of legal residence…” As a matter of first impression, the court of appeals holds that individuals seeking such an evaluation must satisfy an implied and unspecified burden of proof to establish indigency before the individual may obtain an additional examination at county expense. (Op., ¶¶8-9).
Defense Win! COA suppresses statements obtained while trying to ascertain what defendant threw into garbage after having been arrested
State v. Kale K. Keding, 2022AP1373-CR & 2022AP1374-CR, District IV, 8/31/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In an eminently readable and refreshing opinion, COA methodically works through a battery of counterarguments to hold that police could not use statements Keding made after having been asked about a tissue he discarded into a wastebasket while in police custody.
COA: officer had probable cause to conduct PBT
State v. Roger A. Wolf, Jr., 2022AP1539, 8/24/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An responding officer encountered Wolf, head bloodied, near a crashed motorcycle and a dead deer. Wolf said he’d been “drinking all day” but that an unidentified third person, not on scene, had been driving the bike when it hit the deer. He argues the officer lacked probable cause to perform a preliminary breath test.
COA says lawyer not ineffective for not asserting self-defense in DC
State v. Michael Ross Straight, 2022AP2012, 8/24/23, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A woman identified as “A.B.” got out of her car and approached Straight with a machete. Straight, fearing for his life, grabbed A.B., knocked her to the ground, and took the machete from her. He then straddled A.B. with the point of the machete pointing toward her. A friend on scene yelled at Straight; Straight replied “what are you going to do about it?” Then he got up, dropped the machete, and walked away. A.B. departed in her car with the machete.
COA disregards business as usual and reverses default judgment in Milwaukee County TPR
State v. C.D., 2023AP1025, District I, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In an exciting defense win, District I signals a willingness to critically review default orders entered in Milwaukee County.
Defense win! County failed to prove patient received a reasonable explanation of proposed medication
Marinette County v. A.M.N., 2022AP1395, District III, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Faced with a weak record, COA holds that A.M.N. cleared imposing hurdles to relief and reverses the lower court’s medication order as there was no proof he received a reasonable explanation of the proposed medication. However, despite a hearing rife with inadmissible hearsay, COA upholds the underlying commitment order under a harmless error analysis.
Defense Win! Recommitment reversed based on erroneous admission of hearsay testimony
Waupaca County v. G.T.H., 2022AP2146, District IV, 8/24/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Contrary to what has seemed like a steady stream of unsuccessful hearsay-based Chapter 51 appeals, see e.g., here, here, here, here, and here, G.T.H. succussfully convinces the court of appeals to reverse his recommitment, which was based on extensive hearsay testimony.
Yelling and throwing “roll of tape” at father sufficient to establish dangerousness under Ch. 51
Kenosha County v. L.A.T., 2022AP1730, District II, 8/23/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
L.A.T. (“Linda”) convinced the court of appeals the circuit court erred by admitting and relying on hearsay testimony from a psychiatrist to support its dangerousness finding. However, the court holds that sufficient non-hearsay evidence established that “Linda’s pattern of anger and aggressive behavior that caused others to seek law enforcement assistance…was sufficient to establish that others were in reasonable fear of violent behavior and/or serious physical harm at Linda’s hands.” (Op., ¶3).
COA says owner’s girlfriend had apparent authority to allow police entry into cabin
State v. Richard Chad Quinlan, 2022AP1855-1857, 8/17/2023, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Two DNR wardens suspected Quinlan had been engaging in some illegal hunting practices. They approached his cabin in plain clothes and in an unmarked truck. Quinlan’s mother was outside; the wardens identified themselves and said they wanted to talk to Quinlan. The mother said he was home and pointed to the cabin. When the wardens knocked on the door Quinlan’s girlfriend, who one warden recognized, responded “yeah” when asked if they could come in. Within three seconds Quinlan, who was inside, also said it was alright for the wardens to be there. The wardens left after some conversation and Quinlan was eventually cited for violations.
COA affirms another medication order by rejecting “reasonable explanation” arguments; continues to propagate uncertainty in our law
Winnebago County v. P.D.G., 2022AP2005, District II, 8/16/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
In yet another appeal of a medication order attacking the sufficiency of the evidence as to the statute’s requirement that the person receive a “reasonable” or “adequate” explanation of, among other things, the advantages and disadvantages of proposed medication, COA once again affirms in a decision highlighting uncertainty in our law.