On Point blog, page 2 of 68
COA reverses order excluding other acts evidence, holds that greater latitude rule weakens holding of Alsteen
State v. Morris V. Seaton, 2021AP1399-CR, 11/6/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity
In a case confirming the changes wrought to other acts case law as a result of the codification of the greater latitude rule, COA reverses the circuit court’s order excluding evidence of a prior sexual assault
COA rejects pro se challenges to OWI first conviction
Village of Greendale v. Stacey King, 2023AP503, 9/17/24, District I (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity
King appeals her OWI first judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, that the circuit court based its rulings on bias against her instead of on the relevant law, and that the field sobriety test should not have been presented to the jury. The COA rejects these arguments and affirms.
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to exclude evidence at refusal hearing; although officer’s statements to defendant during traffic stop were relevant, they were inadmissible when offered through another officer without personal knowledge of statements.
State v. Rodriguez, 2024AP481, 8/14/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
COA affirms circuit court’s decision to exclude relevant, but inadmissible, evidence at refusal hearing because witness lacked personal knowledge.
1984 prior conviction admissible in first-degree sexual assault of a child trial under the prior conviction statute, § 904.04(2)(b)2.
State v. Kenneth W. Hill, 2022AP1718-CR, 8/6/24, District III (recommended for publication); case activity
The state appealed after the circuit court denied its motion seeking to admit Hill’s 1984 conviction from Minnesota for “criminal sexual conduct in the first degree” pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2)(b)2. at his trials for two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child. The court of appeals reverses and remands with directions, outlining the relevant analysis, holding that the admissible evidence includes only the fact of the conviction, not the underlying details of the prior case, and concluding that the Sullivan analysis does not apply. (¶2).
Defense Win! COA issues must-read decision outlining law regarding “vouching” in child sexual assault prosecutions
State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2021AP1346-CR, 5/21/24, District III (not recommended for publication);petition for review granted case activity
Although this defense win is unpublished and therefore nonprecedential, COA’s analysis and synthesis of the law regarding this commonly litigated issue is an important read for litigators considering such claims.
COA rejects challenges to finding of dangerousness, incompetency to refuse medication and upholds trial court’s decision to admit expert’s report at 51 hearing
Winnebago County v. C.J.H., 2023AP1263, 3/6/24, District II (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
In a 51 appeal presenting several commonly litigated issues, COA finds no error and affirms.
COA reverses order suppressing evidence obtained after traffic stop
State v. Lauren Dannielle Peterson, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (one-judge case, ineligible for publication); case activity
Peterson’s circuit court win is short-lived after the court of appeals concludes that reasonable suspicion existed to initiate an OWI investigation and probable cause existed to ask Peterson to perform a preliminary breath test (PBT).
COA upholds circuit court’s decision to exclude defendant’s proffered evidence regarding field sobriety tests at PAC trial
State v. Batterman, 2022AP181, 11/28/23, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Given the discretionary standard of review used to assess a circuit court’s evidentiary rulings, COA wastes no time in upholding the court’s order excluding evidence the defendant did well on some field sobriety tests at a second offense PAC trial.
COA remands for “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing
State v. Michele M. Ford, 2022AP187 & 2022AP188, 10/31/23, District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The takeaway from this procedurally convoluted case is that Ford succeeds in her appeal from an order finding her incompetent to stand trial in two misdemeanor cases. Specifically, the court reverses and remands for a “nunc pro tunc” competency hearing at which the circuit court will have to determine whether Ford was competent to proceed without relying on trial counsel’s statements to the evaluator, which the court holds violated the attorney-client privilege and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. (Op., ¶26).
COA affirms and agrees that officer’s violation of sequestration order need not result in new trial
State v. Marqus G. Phillips, 2023AP450, 10/4/23, District 2 (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
That the Constitution does not guarantee an “error-free trial” is an unnecessary response to a straw man when a defendant seeks a new trial after it is discovered that the second of two state’s witnesses was found to have violated the circuit court’s witness sequestration order. It’s also an easy out where the circuit court’s lack of prejudice determination in denying a mistrial claim is reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review.