On Point blog, page 53 of 262
COA: visiting a child is exercising “physical placement”; can be a crime
State v. Angelina Hansen, 2019AP1105, 7/27/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Hansen’s triplet fourth-graders were in the legal custody of their father; he also had primary physical placement of the children. The family court’s order provided that she was to have “supervised placement only” with certain conditions, for two to four hours per week. One day, Ms. Hansen went to the lunch room of the school the children attended and sat with them while they ate. She said wanted to “hug them and tell them [she] loved them.” The court of appeals now holds that this conduct was an unlawful exercise of “physical placement” over the children, such that Ms. Hansen’s conviction for contempt of the family court order stands.
COA holds discovery violation harmless, rejects spoliation claim
State v. Jacky Lee, 2020AP1633, 7/27/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state arrested Lee for second-offense OWI and PAC violations. The intoximeter breath test he took at the police department was video-recorded. However, due to the state’s delay in charging Lee, he did not request the video until it had already been recorded over, consistent with the department’s practice of keeping such videos for 3-6 months unless there’s been a request to preserve them.
Court of appeals reverses discretionary juvenile non-waiver in a way that seems pretty discretionary
State v. X.S., 2021AP419, 7/20/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Xander (a pseudonym) shot several people in a well-known incident at the Mayfair Mall in Wauwatosa. The juvenile court concluded that it was the right forum for the case and denied the state’s motion to waive the matter into adult criminal court under WIS. STAT. § 938.18(5). The court of appeals reverses. This is a one-judge decision and so it makes no binding law. What it does instead is pay brief lip service to the deference it owes the lower court’s discretionary call before going on to recite–with a prosecutorial tenor–its own view of how that discretion ought to have been exercised.
Defense win: Court erroneously exercised discretion at juvenile waiver hearing
State v. M.C., 2021AP301, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decsion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in deciding to waive M.C. into adult court on a sexual assault charge, so the waiver is reversed and the case remanded for the circuit court to exercise its discretion properly.
Evidence bearing on witness credibility discovered post-trial doesn’t require new CHIPS trial
State v. M.T.W., 2021AP420-FT, District 2, 8/11/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Information that goes to a witness’s character for truthfulness doesn’t meet the standard under § 48.46(1) for newly discovered evidence that warrants a new trial.
Expert testimony citing retrograde extrapolation of BAC was admissible
St. Croix County v. Kelly M. Lagerstrom, 2019AP928, District 3, 8/10/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
As in State v. Giese, 2014 WI App 92, 356 Wis. 2d 796, 854 N.W.2d 687, retrograde extrapolation testimony from a toxicologist was admissible as evidence of Lagerstrom’s possible blood alcohol content around the time the state alleged he drove his car into a ditch.
Court of Appeals rejects claims that trial counsel was ineffective at TPR trial
Douglas County DHHS v. D.B., 2020AP982, District 3, 8/10/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
D.B. claims trial counsel at his TPR trial was ineffective for: (1) failing to object to the application to his case of the amended version of the statute governing continuing CHIPS grounds; (2) failing to introduce evidence about additional visits between D.B. and his son; and (3) failing to object to testimony about his son’s negative reactions to him during certain visits. The court of appeals rejects the claims.
Transfer of person committed under ch. 51 from outpatient to inpatient setting was lawful
Jackson County v. T.A.L., 2021AP499, District 4, 8/5/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.A.L.’s transfer from outpatient status to a locked inpatient unit based on his medical needs didn’t violate the requirements of § 51.35.
Fourth Amendment reasonableness requirement doesn’t mandate field sobriety tests be done a location sheltered from inclement weather
Portage County v. Sean Michael Dugan, 2021AP454 & 2021AP455, District 4, 8/5/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Dugan was stopped in a snowstorm. The officer had him do field sobriety tests at the scene of the stop, in a rut in the snow crated by the squad’s tires. (¶¶3-4). Having Dugan do the FSTs in the snow didn’t make his detention unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Evidence showed ch. 51 respondent was “a proper subject for treatment”
Winnebago County v. J.C.S., 2021AP354, District 2, 8/4/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence presented at J.C.S.’s final commitment hearing was “just enough” to prove J.C.S. was a proper subject of treatment, one of the elements necessary to justify a ch. 51 commitment order, § 51.20(1)(a)1.