On Point blog, page 1 of 12
In fact-intensive TPR appeal, COA rejects numerous creative legal arguments and affirms
State of Wisconsin v. D.R.-R.D.J. 2024AP2406, 10/8/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity
In an imposingly lengthy opinion involving an interesting choice of counsel claim (among many others), COA rejects arguments that “Diane” was denied her rights to counsel of choice and to the effective assistance of counsel and affirms.
COA: Circuit court properly exercised its discretion in its evidentiary rulings at trial on grounds to terminate parental rights.
State v. D.J., 2025AP1334 and 1335, 9/16/25, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Over the respondent’s evidentiary objections, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s orders terminating D.J.’s parental rights to two of her children.
Defense Win: COA holds that circuit court wrongly limited defendant’s testimony; holds error is not harmless
State v. Derek J. Jarvi 2023AP2136-CR, 6/12/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity
Despite the State’s efforts to overturn Jarvi’s postconviction win of a new trial, the court of appeals rejects the State’s evidentiary arguments and holds that it failed to prove harmless error in this case.
Defense Win! Recommitment reversed based on erroneous admission of hearsay testimony
Waupaca County v. G.T.H., 2022AP2146, District IV, 8/24/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
Contrary to what has seemed like a steady stream of unsuccessful hearsay-based Chapter 51 appeals, see e.g., here, here, here, here, and here, G.T.H. succussfully convinces the court of appeals to reverse his recommitment, which was based on extensive hearsay testimony.
Yelling and throwing “roll of tape” at father sufficient to establish dangerousness under Ch. 51
Kenosha County v. L.A.T., 2022AP1730, District II, 8/23/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)
L.A.T. (“Linda”) convinced the court of appeals the circuit court erred by admitting and relying on hearsay testimony from a psychiatrist to support its dangerousness finding. However, the court holds that sufficient non-hearsay evidence established that “Linda’s pattern of anger and aggressive behavior that caused others to seek law enforcement assistance…was sufficient to establish that others were in reasonable fear of violent behavior and/or serious physical harm at Linda’s hands.” (Op., ¶3).
Officer’s testimony about ZAP STICK merely “expositional,” not subject to 907.02(1)’s heightened reliability standard
State v. Danny Arthur Wright, 2021AP1252-CR, District 3, 05/16/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state charged Wright with first degree sexual assault with use of a dangerous weapon. The alleged dangerous weapon at issue was a ZAP STICK. Wright filed a motion in limine to bar the state from calling a Detective to offer expert opinion testimony under Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) and Daubert. The circuit court permitted the testimony after the state cautioned that it would not ask the detective whether the ZAP STICK used in Wright’s case was a dangerous weapon under the relevant statute. The court of appeals affirms on essentially the same basis: the detective’s testimony was permissible “expositional” testimony under State v. Dobbs, 2020 WI 64, 392 Wis. 2d 505, 945 N.W.2d 609, and not subject to the heightened reliability standard for expert opinion testimony.
Counsel performed deficiently, failed to object to GAL’s closing argument at TPR trial
Chippewa County Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. v. J.W.., 2021AP1986, 7/19/22, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
“Janine” raised an insufficient evidence claim and several ineffective assistance of counsel claims in her appeal from an order terminating her parental right to her son. This post focuses on two of the IAC claims. Counsel failed to object to (1) portions of the county social worker’s testimony, and (2) new information that the GAL introduced during closing statements.
Exclusion of evidence didn’t violate defendant’s right to present defense; instruction on self defense adequately instructed the jury
State v. Sergio Moises Ochoa, 2022 WI App 35; case activity (including briefs)
Ochoa, charged with two counts of first degree intentional homicide, claimed self defense. The court of appeals rejects his claims that the circuit court violated his right to present his defense by excluding certain evidence he wanted to present. The court also rejects his claim that the circuit court erred by refusing to modify the pattern jury instruction applicable to his case.
COA holds ch. 51 appeal not moot; rejects several evidentiary challenges
Marquette County v. T.W., 2020AP1908, 9/16/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.W. was living in a group home in 2019 when, per testimony at his commitment trial, he punched, choked and threatened various people while refusing to take his medications. He was committed. On appeal he challenges the circuit court’s admission of some evidence. The county responds that his challenge is moot.
COA holds Confrontation violation harmless
State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2021 WI App 55; Review granted 1/11/22; affirmed 2/21/23; case activity (including briefs)
This is the appeal from Thomas’s second conviction at trial for the false imprisonment, sexual assault and murder of his wife. (The first conviction was ultimately undone by the Seventh Circuit, which held that his counsel had been ineffective for failing to seek out certain expert testimony.) Thomas raises three issues. He claims he was convicted of the sexual assault count in violation of the corroboration rule, because the only evidence it occurred was his own confession. He also says all three convictions were obtained in violation of his right to confrontation, as the state introduced a hearsay lab report concerning DNA evidence during cross-examination of his expert. And he argues one of the jurors was objectively biased because she at least believed she was a cousin of one state’s witness. The court rejects all three claims.