On Point blog, page 1 of 4
COA concludes testimony alone, with no physical evidence, is sufficient to affirm conviction for driving faster than was reasonable and prudent.
Dane County v. Trent Joseph Meyer, 2024AP1630, 8/14/25, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed a conviction for driving faster than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions where the defendant drove 20 miles-per-hour above the speed limit and came “close” to other cars’ bumpers.
COA: Sufficient evidence to convict for OWI on a “highway” where intoxicated driver found in the driver’s seat of his truck while parked in a ditch.
State of Wisconsin v. Robert W. Berghuis, 2025AP134-CR, District II, 8/6/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA affirmed a jury’s guilty verdict for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, finding the evidence was sufficient that the driver operated the vehicle on a “highway” when law enforcement encountered the driver in the driver’s seat of his truck that was parked in a ditch.
COA finds preserving electric vehicle’s battery no defense for driving too slowly on the expressway.
State v. Colin R. Dowling, 2024AP524, 5/1/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
The COA found sufficient evidence to sustain Colin Dowling’s civil forfeiture obligation for impeding traffic by driving at a slow speed. Although Dowling argued that there were no reasonable alternatives to slowing down his Tesla to preserve its battery, the COA concluded contacting roadside assistance was a safer alternative than driving 45 miles per hour on an interstate highway where the speed limit was 70.
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI 1st and refusal convictions
City of Rhinelander v. Zachary Tyler LaFave-LaCrosse, 2020AP1120 & 1121, 1/7/25, District III (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
LaCrosse appeals pro se from the circuit court judgments, entered after a bench trial, convicting him of first-offense operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) and refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication. COA rejects all his arguments and affirms.
COA takes tough stand on Wisconsin’s accident reporting statute
County of Monroe v. Kling, 2022AP339, 12/30/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Section 346.70(1) governs a driver’s duty to report a car accident. When the accident does not cause injury or death, the driver must report the “total damage to property owned by any one person. . . to an apparent value of $1,000 or more” to the authorities by “the quickest means of communication.” There are no published opinions interpreting and applying this language. This decision construes it against drivers and affirms the civil forfeiture entered against Kling.
Minor passenger in car operated by intoxicated driver is a “victim” for purposes of restitution statute
State v. Mark J. Gahart, 2022 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals holds that driving while intoxicated with a minor passenger is not a victimless crime: the minor passenger is a victim for purposes of the restitution statute.
Defense win: Modification to standard jury instruction on driving while impaired by drugs relieved state of burden of proof
State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2021 WI App 89; case activity (including briefs)
McAdory was charged with driving with a detectable amount of restricted controlled substances—cocaine and THC—and driving under the influence of those substances. At trial, the state convinced the trial judge to modify the standard jury instruction for the latter charge, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2664, by deleting the statement that not every person who has consumed controlled substances is “under the influence.” This modification, coupled with the prosecutor’s closing argument that it had proven its case by proving McAdory had a detectable amount of the substances, effectively relieved the state of its burden to prove that McAdory was “under the influence.”
Evidence sufficient for disorderly conduct conviction
State v. Samuel Martin Polhamus, 2019AP2339-CR, 1/28/21, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The State charged Polhamus with bail-jumping and disorderly conduct. A jury acquitted on the first charge and convicted on the second. Polhamus appealed pro se and, according to the court of appeals, appeared to argue that the State’s evidence of his alleged disorderly conduct both inside and outside of a bar was insufficient.
A riding lawn mower is a “motor vehicle” for purposes of OWI statute
State v. Keith H. Shoeder, 2019 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs)
So if you’re going to drink and drive your riding mower, stay on your lawn.
Standard OWI jury instruction sufficiently conveyed meaning of “impaired”
State v. Kari E. Mravik, 2018AP2300-CR, District 4, 8/29/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At her OWI 2d trial, Mravik asked the judge to modify Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2663’s definition of “under the influence of an intoxicant.” The trial judge declined. The court of appeals finds no error because the instruction as a whole conveys the correct meaning of the phrase.