On Point blog, page 73 of 262
Police had reasonable suspicion to seize person in area of a “shots fired” call
State v. Larry Alexander Norton, 2019AP1796-CR, 4/14/20, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In which the occupant of a legally parked car becomes the object of police scrutiny, for very little apparent reason, and all is found to be copacetic under the Fourth Amendment.
Court didn’t erroneously exercise discretion in terminating parental rights
Waushara County DHS v. A.J.P., 2019AP2387, District 4, 4/13/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court properly exercised its discretion by considering all the factors under § 48.426(3) when it decided to terminate A.J.P.’s parental rights.
Lawyer’s deficient response to TPR summary judgment motion wasn’t prejudicial
S.L.H. v. J.J.D., 2019AP1554, District 2, 3/25/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The lawyer representing J.J.D. (“John”) in his TPR proceeding failed to mount a sufficient defense to the summary judgment motion brought by S.L.H. (“Sarah”). But that deficient performance didn’t prejudice John. The evidence the lawyer failed to present wasn’t enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact, so summary judgment would have been granted anyway.
“As applied” challenge to guns statute fails, despite State’s tacit concession
State v. Mitchell L. Christen, 2019AP1767-Cr, 3/17/20, District 4 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); review granted 9/16/16; case activity (including briefs)
Interesting case. Section 941.20(1)(b) makes operating or going armed with a firearm while under the influence of an intoxicant a misdemeanor. Christen argued that the statute violates the 2nd Amendment “as applied” to anyone who engages in the prohibited conduct while inside his or her home. The State declined to file a response brief, which means it conceded the point. Still, the court of appeals rejected Christen’s argument and affirmed.
COA: child’s lack of memory didn’t cause confrontation problem with playing video of earlier interview
State v. Richard A. Boie, 2019AP520, 3/5/20, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Boie appeals his jury-trial conviction for repeated sexual assault of the same child and the denial of his postconviction motion. He raises issues arising from the videotaped interview of his accuser, admitted under Wis. Stat. § 908.08. On the video, the then-six-year-old described assaults occurring when she was four and five years old. At trial, though, the now-nine-year old testified she couldn’t remember some of the things she spoke about in the video. Boie argues the statutory guidelines for admission weren’t met, and separately that his lawyer was ineffective for not moving for mistrial once the memory problems became clear.
Whose ox was gored? COA upholds inconsistent verdicts
State v. Corey Stauner, 2019AP81-CR, District 3, 3/10/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This seems wrong. The State charged Stauner with resisting an officer and bail jumping for committing that crime. The jury acquitted him of resisting an officer but found him guilty of bail jumping. The court of appeals recognized that the 2 verdicts were inconsistent, but said that this result was permissible pursuant to State v. Rice, 2008 WI App 10, 307 Wis. 2d 335, 743 N.W.2d 517 (2007).
Citizens’ tip and officer’s observations provided reasonable suspicion for OWI stop
State v. Kelly C. Richardson, 2019AP1650-CR, District 2, 3/11/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Police received a tip that Richardson appeared to be drunk while at a bank at 11:30 a.m. She left and drove to a Wal-Mart to shop. As she returned to her car, a sergeant approached and questioned her. He observed that she smelled of alcohol, slurred her speech, and had glassy eyes. He arrested her and she was charged with OWI 3rd and pleaded no contest.
COA affirms exclusion of evidence re State’s prior unsuccessful TPR at later TPR trial
State v. D.L., 2019AP2331, District 1, 3/10/20; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The State petitioned to terminate D.L.’s parental rights to Y.P.-T. for failure to assume parental responsibility in January 2017 and lost at a jury trial. So when the State filed a new T.P.R. proceeding in October 2018, D.L. moved the circuit court to instruct the jury instructed that he had a substantial relationship with Y.P-T for the first 20 months of her life. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.
COA says no error in 6-month date range for commission of sexual assault
State v. T. E.-B., 2019AP309, 3/5/20, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T. E.-B. appeals his juvenile adjudication for sexual assault of a four-year-old, arguing that the state failed to prove that the alleged assault happened when the petition said it did: “on or about June 21, 2017.” Everyone agrees that the possible range of dates for the assault doesn’t encompass that day, which was a few days after the child first reported an assault to family. Based on the child’s account, the assault actually would have to have occurred sometime between November 6, 2016 and mid-June of 2017.
COA: it’s unreasonable to believe in perpetual, inescapable ch. 51 commitments
Jefferson County v. M.P., 2019AP2229, 3/5/20, District 4 (One-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
M.P. has schizophrenia. In 2018, she was committed for six months after she made statements about shooting some relatives and burning down a house. In 2019, the county sought and received an extension of the commitment. M.P. argues that recommitment was invalid because the evidence went only to her conduct before her initial commitment, and thus didn’t show her to be currently dangerous. The court of appeals disagrees.