On Point blog, page 1 of 4
Defense Wins: COA finds insufficient evidence to support guilty verdict for possessing methamphetamine.
State v. Kelsy R. Wooldridge, 2022AP1927-CR, 5/20/25, District III (not recommended for publication), case activity
In a decision not recommended for publication, the COA reversed Kelsy Wooldridge’s conviction for possessing methamphetamine and found that no reasonable jury could have determined beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew a bloody syringe seized from her purse contained an unmeasurable amount of the drug.
COA holds that difference between “L meth” and “D meth” does not create a defense to RCS prosecution
State v. Walter L. Johnson, 2024AP79-CR, 2/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case resolving a hot issue for OWI litigators, COA rejects challenges to an RCS prosecution based on the chemical difference between “L meth”–found in certain nasal decongestant sprays–and “D meth,” which is found in illicit street drugs.
COA issues published decision interpreting 971.365(1)(b) and rejects arguments for plea withdrawal
State v. Cordiaral F. West, 2022AP2196, 5/1/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
COA interprets a statute allowing aggregation of separate drug offenses into a single charge and holds that West is not entitled to plea withdrawal.
Court of Appeals: Aiding buyer in drug sale can lead to Len Bias liability because it also aided dealer
State v. Terry L. Hibbard, 2022 WI App 53; case activity (including briefs)
In a decision that allows for a sweeping expansion of aiding and abetting prosecutions in Len Bias cases, the court of appeals holds that a person assisting only a buyer a drug transaction could also be prosecuted for reckless homicide if the buyer dies from using the drug because any act aiding the buyer in getting the drugs also necessarily aids the seller in making the delivery.
Knowing possession of trace heroin imputed from track marks and paraphernalia
State v. Nakyta V.T. Chentis, 2022 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)
To convict someone of possession of a controlled substance, the State must prove both that he was in possession of the substance and that he knew or believed he was in possession of it. State v. Christel, 61 Wis. 2d 143, 159, 211 N.W.2d 801 (1973). See also Wis JI-Criminal 6000. In a published opinion, the court of appeals holds Chentis knew he possessed a trace amount of heroin–undetectable until the State Crime Lab applied a special chemical to paraphernalia–based on fresh track marks on his arm.
Partial SCOW defense win; two charges for two different strength pills multiplicitous
State v. Brantner, 2020 WI 21, 2/25/20, affirming in part and reversing in part a summary order, 2018AP53; case activity (including briefs)
Brantner was arrested (for reasons unrelated to this case) in Kenosha County by Fond du Lac County detectives. They took him to jail in Fond du Lac, where a booking search revealed several different types of pills concealed in his boot. He was tried, convicted and sentenced in Fond du Lac on five counts of drug possession and five associated bail-jumping counts. The supreme court now rejects his argument that he didn’t “possess” any of the drugs in Fond du Lac County–that the arrest in Kenosha terminated his possession because he lacked control over the pills. But it agrees with him that his conviction on two of the counts (with their associated bail-jumping counts) is a double-jeopardy violation; the bare fact that he had pills with two different oxycodone dosages (5 and 20 milligram) will not support two different charges of possessing that drug.
Evidence was sufficient to support verdicts for possession of drugs with intent to deliver
State v. Orlando Lloyd Cotton, 2016AP2211-CR, District 1, 2/13/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Cotton was convicted of being party to the crime of possession of cocaine and marijuana with intent to deliver and keeping a drug house. He unsuccessfully argues the evidence wasn’t sufficient to convict him and that his trial lawyer was ineffective.
Defense win on sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to deliver THC and on mootness!
State v. August D. Genz, 2016AP2475-CR, District 3, 1/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Genz of (1) possession with intent to deliver amphetamine and (2) conspiracy to deliver THC. The court imposed concurrent, stayed sentences with 1 year of probation. Genz appealed the 2nd conviction, but he completed his term of probation while the appeal was pending. The State moved to dismiss on grounds of mootness. The court of appeals said, essentially, no way. The appeal was not moot because a felony conviction has collateral consequences. Furthermore, the State did not offer sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy to deliver THC. Conviction reversed!
Court of appeals interprets scope of Wisconsin’s new “Good Samaritan” immunity statute narrowly
State v. Marie Williams, 2016 WI App 82; case activity (including briefs)
Like other states, Wisconsin has an opioid addiction epidemic. To encourage people to summon emergency aid for someone who has overdosed, the legislature passed §961.443 which provides that that an “aider” is immune from prosecution for the possession of drug paraphernalia under §961.573 or a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog under §961.41(3g) when trying to help a victim of overdose.
SCOTUS clarifies the knowledge requirement applicable to prosecutions under the federal controlled substance analog law
Stephen McFadden v. United States, USSC No. 14-378, 2015 WL 2473377 (June 18, 2015), reversing and remanding United States v. McFadden, 753 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
The Supreme Court holds that in order to convict a defendant of distribution a controlled substance analogue, the government must prove that the defendant knew the substance was controlled under the federal Controlled Substances Act or the Analogue Act, or that the defendant knew the specific features of the substance that make it a controlled substance analogue.