On Point: 10. Defenses

City of Kenosha v. Jackson Rathod, 2024AP2307, 10/28/26, District II (not eligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed the defendant’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  It held that the defendant was not entitled to have the jury instructed on necessity because he had an alternative means of staying warm after drinking alcohol at a winter house party, other than returning to his car to turn on the heat.

State v. Roosevelt L. Spencer, 2025AP1256, 10/20/26, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity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

State v. Aman D. Singh, 2025AP424, 6/16/26, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

The COA held that felony fleeing and resisting arrest are the “same act” for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations.

Kenneth Karwacki v. Josh Kaul, No. 25-2361, 4/2/26

In a brief opinion affirming the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s claims that Wisconsin violated his constitutional rights by denying his application for a permit to carry a concealed firearm, the Seventh Circuit Court provides a primer on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and summarizes recent federal cases addressing Second Amendment challenges to laws prohibiting possessing firearms due to criminal convictions.

State v. Timothy Lester Troon, Jr., 2024AP110-CR, 2/19/26, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Troon appeals his OWI 5th conviction and an order denying his postconviction motion, in which he argued that the circuit court erred in sua sponte vacating his first plea and judgment of conviction based on a disagreement between the parties about the joint sentencing recommendation that followed the court’s acceptance of his plea. COA agrees, vacating the conviction, reinstate Troon’s first plea and JOC, and remanding for resentencing.

State v. Robert M. Christianson, 2024AP1884-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Christianson pleaded no contest to OWI 8th after the circuit court rejected his collateral challenges to 3 prior OWI convictions. On appeal, he renews his arguments that the three convictions are invalid because he did not have legal counsel, he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (“KIV”) waive his right to counsel, and the court handling the case failed to find that he was competent to proceed without counsel in each case. COA concludes that Christianson made a prima facie showing that he was denied his constitutional right to counsel in all three cases, but the state met its burden to show that he nonetheless validly waived his right to counsel in 2 of the 3 cases, and the circuit court properly found that he was competent to proceed without counsel.

State v. Tommy Jay Cross, 2023AP2013-CR, 11/4/25, District III (recommended for publication); case activity

In an opinion that might remind some readers of their first year of law school, COA outlines the basic principles of Wisconsin’s self-defense doctrine and holds that the jury was given inaccurate instructions on the subject as it pertains to defense of others.

State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2025 WI 34, 7/3/25, affirming an unpublished decision from COA; case activity

Faced with a unique fact pattern arising from an OWI prosecution, SCOW interprets Wisconsin’s coercion defense and finds that Stetzer is unable to prevail, regardless of the clearly sympathetic facts presented.

State v. Jeffrey A. Roth, 2024AP737, 12/11/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Three police officers confronted Roth after receiving a complaint that he was stumbling around and then sitting in a vehicle. The state charged Roth with five counts, including resisting. Before his jury trial, which resulted in two misdemeanor convictions, Roth moved to dismiss based on the police officers’ failure to preserve body and squad camera footage of the underlying incident. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the motion. The COA affirms, concluding that Roth failed to prove the videos were apparently exculpatory, or that the police acted in bad faith.

State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2023AP874-CR, 3/27/24, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); petition for review granted; affirmed 7/3/25 case activity

In a difficult case demonstrating the stringent nature of Wisconsin’s coercion defense, COA affirms the circuit court’s decision that the defense did not apply to Stetzer’s conduct, notwithstanding a medley of uniquely sympathetic facts.