On Point: C. Unpublished Opinions

State v. James R. Mueller, 2018AP44-CR, 2/12/19, District 3 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Mueller conceded that an officer had reasonable suspicion to stop him. He argued that the officer extended the stop based on a “hunch” and that his FSTs results did not provide probable cause for arrest or sufficient evidence to convict him because they test for impairment by alcohol, not prescription meds.

State v. Marco A. Lopez, Sr., 2018AP159-CR, 2/12/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The State charged Lopez with child sexual assault of two victims and moved to admit the of testimony of two additional relatives who said that they were also assaulted by Lopez for years when they were the same ages as the victims. Lopez conceded the first two elements of the “other acts” evidence test. State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998),  §904.04(2) and §904.03. He argued that the trial court incorrectly weighed the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice.

County of Green v. Joey Jay Barnes, 2018AP1382, District 4, 2/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court dismissed charges against Barnes after suppressing some of the evidence against him. Not so fast, says the court of appeals.

Village of Menomonee Falls v. Kristina L. Smithers, 2018AP993, District 2, 2/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court properly rejected Smithers’s invocation of an involuntary intoxication defense in her prosecution for operating while under the influence of the prescription medication she was taken as prescribed.

State v. Tracy E. McCarthy, 2018AP484, District 2, 2/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

McCarthy’s pro se appeal in his disorderly conduct case fails on multiple grounds. His brief doesn’t cite to the record and the record doesn’t include any transcripts. He doesn’t develop any legal arguments in support of his claims about the alleged errors at trial. Moreover, there wasn’t a trial: he entered a plea to an ordinance violation.

State v. Michael R. Pace, 2018AP1428, District 2, 1/30/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The officer who arrested Pace for OWI had probable cause to do so.

State v. Andrew Anton Sabo, 2017AP2289-CR, District 1, 1/29/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Sabo challenges the search warrant that led to the seizure of evidence from his home, arguing that the affidavit in support of the warrant didn’t establish probable cause, that he is entitled to a Franks-Mann hearing because the affidavit contained false information, and that the identity of the citizen informant who was the source of much of the information in the affidavit should be disclosed because there are reasons to doubt the informant’s reliability and credibility. The court of appeals disagrees.

State v. S.M.T., 2018AP2113, 2018AP2114, & 2018AP2115, District 1, 1/29/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals rejects S.M.T.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence terminating her parental rights based on the children’s continuing need of protective services and S.M.T.’s failure to assume parental responsibility.

State v. L.V., 2018AP1065, 1/29/19, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The defense moved to exclude evidence of L.V.’s criminal record prior to his daughter’s birth. The State told the court it had no intention of introducing his criminal record at trial. But when L.V. took the stand, guess who started asking about his criminal record?

State v. Mickey L. Miller, 2017AP2323-CR, 1/29/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Midway through Miller’s trial, the State discovered that two photo arrays had been conducted when both parties thought there had been just one. The State did not immediately disclose this fact. It waited until after the victim testified. The defense obtained a mistrial. The court of appeals holds that double jeopardy did not bar the State from trying Miller again.