On Point: 11. Defense Wins

State v. Roosevelt L. Spencer, 2025AP1256, 10/20/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order granting the defendant’s motion to suppress based on issue preclusion where his motion was granted in a prior case, which was dismissed without prejudice, because the State’s only witness did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.  The COA found the criteria for issue preclusion were established – that the matter was actually litigated previously and that applying issue preclusion comported with principles of fundamental fairness.

Chippewa County v. N.M.E., 2026AP545, 10/13/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order granting Chippewa County’s petition for protective placement because the evidence was insufficient to show that “Nora’s” cognitive decline presented a substantial risk of serious and foreseeable harm to her and because protective placement was not the least restrictive environment consistent with her needs.

Calumet County v. S.A., 2026AP1076, 10/7/26, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reverses S.A.’s protective placement, concluding that the county failed to present sufficient evidence that her incapacity is a result of developmental disability, degenerative brain disorder,
serious and persistent mental illness, or other like incapacities.

State v. Terry Lee Anderson, 2025AP1435, 9/17/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Anderson appeals the judgment convicting him of three counts that the circuit court had, in a previous case, dismissed with prejudice. COA agrees that the circuit court lacked the authority to disregard its prior dismissal order as void, and remands with instructions that the court vacate the counts that were previously dismissed with prejudice.

State v. Derek A. Lamb, 2025AP824, 7/31/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA reversed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of a traffic stop where the only evidence of criminal activity was that the defendant was parked next to another vehicle on a dead-end road at 3 a.m. and the defendant attempted to avoid contact with law enforcement.

State v. Michael P. Bundy, 2025AP1072, 6/25/26, District IV (not eligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the circuit court’s order suppressing the fruits of a traffic stop because an officer’s mistake of law regarding the driver’s suspected violation of the window tinting regulation did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

City of Antigo v. John Paul Fermanich, 2023AP1834, 6/16/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The City of Antigo appeals an order granting John Paul Fermanich’s motion to suppress blood evidence because Fermanich’s consent to the blood draw was coerced. COA affirms in this “close case” as it is the city’s burden to demonstrate that Fermanich freely and voluntarily consented to the warrantless blood draw.

Waupaca County Department of Health & Human Services v. C.J.T., 2026AP794, 6/11/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

CJT appeals the circuit court order terminating his parental rights to his son, JJT, arguing that the court failed to demonstrate that it considered all of the required factors at disposition. Despite the deferential standard of review to a TPR dispositional order, COA agrees, reversing the termination order and remanding for a proper exercise of discretion.

State v. Desmond J. Wilhite, 2024AP2177-CR, 9/25/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA agrees with Wilhite that Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(e) is facially unconstitutional to the extent that it permits a circuit court to revoke an NGI acquittee’s conditional release and to commit the acquittee to institutional care based solely on the violation of a court-ordered condition or department rule without proof of current dangerousness. It also concludes that the unconstitutional provisions in § 971.17(3)(e) are severable, and leaves in place the remainder of the statute.

State v. Samuel R. Osornio, 2024AP2368-CR, decision originally issued 6/25/25, subsequently withdrawn, reissued 7/18/25, District 4, (recommended for publication); petition for review granted 5/20/26; case activity (including briefs)

Osornio argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the state charged him with both reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, based on allegations that he delivered heroin to A.B. and A.B. fatally overdosed on this heroin, and, separately, with delivery of the same heroin to A.B. (¶1). COA reverses, concluding that the two counts were multiplicitous, as Osornio was exposed to the potential for punishment twice for the same offense of delivering heroin to A.B. (¶3).