On Point: 11. Defense Wins

State v. Rafael D. Honig, 2016 WI App 10; case activity (including briefs)

Honig, convicted at trial of two first-degree child sexual assaults, asserts that his trial counsel mishandled three issues bearing on the credibility of his accusers; the court of appeals agrees.

State v. Cory S. Herrmann, 2015 WI App 97; case activity (including briefs)

In light of the Second Amendment decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), Wisconsin’s prohibition on the possession of a switchblade knife, § 941.24(1), is unconstitutional as applied to a person who possesses a switchblade in his or her own home.

State v. Patrick K. Kozel, 2015AP656-CR, District 4, 11/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/7/16, reversed, 2017 WI 3; case activity (including briefs)

The results of a blood draw done by an EMT after Kozel was arrested for OWI were inadmissible because the State failed to prove that the blood draw was conducted by a “person acting under the direction of a physician,” as required by § 343.305(5)(b).

State v. Jamie R. Anderson, 2015 WI App 92; case activity (including briefs)

Answering a question lingering since the Truth-in-Sentencing revisions that took effect in 2003 (TIS-II), the court of appeals holds that a person serving a bifurcated prison sentence for a misdemeanor enhanced under the repeater statute, § 939.62(1)(a), is eligible to petition for a sentence adjustment under § 973.195 after serving 75% of the confinement portion of the sentence.

State v. One 2013 Toyota Corolla, 2015 WI App 84; case activity (including briefs)

While a co-owner’s interest in a car didn’t make her the owner for purposes of the “innocent owner” exception to property forfeiture under § 961.55(1)(d)2., forfeiture of her full financial interest violated the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against the levying of excessive fines.

Paysun Long v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-3327, 10/27/15

Long is entitled to habeas relief because the prosecutor in his state murder trial failed to correct perjured testimony given by a state’s witness.

State v. Joshua Allan Vitek, 2015AP421-CR, District 3, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Under State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, 306 Wis. 2d 193, 742 N.W.2d 923, police may reasonably assume the driver of a car is likely to be the owner, and may stop the car if they know the owner’s operating privileges are invalid. But what if more than one person owns the car, but only one of the owners has an invalid license? The state claims that a traffic stop is still justified by the fact that one of the owners has an invalid license. The court of appeals disagrees, at least when—as in this case—the state presents no evidence as to the number of registered owners and the validity of their operating privileges.

State v. B.A.H., 2015AP1256-FT, District 4, 10/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

While restitution is a possible disposition in a proceeding involving a juvenile in need of protection or services (JIPS), it can only be ordered when there has been a finding a finding the juvenile committed a delinquent act. Because there was no such finding in the JIPS case involving B.A.H., the juvenile court had no authority to order restitution.

Clark County v. S.A.G., 2015AP793, District 4, 10/8/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

There was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that S.A.G. suffers from a disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent, as required by § 55.08(1)(d).

State ex rel. Rockie L. Douglas v. Brian Hayes, 2015 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)

Douglas’s probation was improperly revoked based on his refusal to answer his probation agent’s inquiry about Douglas’s suspected involvement in various criminal activities while on probation because he was not sufficiently informed, prior to his refusal, that he had both use and derivative use immunity related to any information he would have provided the agent.