On Point: E. Privilege, Ch. 905

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).

State & T.A.J. v. Alan S. Johnson, 2023 WI 39, 05/16/2023, reversing a published court of appeals decision, case activity (including briefs)

As the dissent aptly describes it, “[t]his case has traveled a long and winding road to this point, and Johnson’s trial has not yet begun.” (Opinion, ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). As discussed in On Point’s prior posts, here and here, this case was originally about whether “Marsy’s Law” gave crime victims standing to intervene in Shiffra–Green litigation. After the court appeals held that it did and after Johnson petitioned for review, the supreme court took up the case. Then, in a footnote in its response brief, the state asserted that, “Shiffra is incorrect to the extent that it holds that Ritchie applies to records outside the State’s possession.” (Op., ¶110, Bradley, A.W., dissenting). Thereafter, the supreme court ordered supplemental briefing on a new question: “Should the court overrule State v. Shiffra…?” (Op., ¶4). And, now the majority has done just that.

State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, 2023 WI 24, 3/31/22, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

This split decision is important for two reasons. First, it authorizes the State to penalize the defendant for exercising his 5th Amendment right to remain silent at trial. Second, it foreshadows how Justice Hagedorn will likely rule in cases involving a broad range of criminal and civil constitutional rights that were established after the framers wrote the United State Constitution.

State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman, 2023 WI 1, 1/10/23, reversing a per curiam court of appeals opinion, 2020AP226, case activity (including briefs)

At Hineman’s trial for sexual assault of a child, a police officer testified that she believed the child had accused Hineman of touching him several months before her investigation began, and several months before the child made similar statements in a forensic interview. This wasn’t true, and the officer’s police report contradicted her testimony on this point: it said a CPS report had noted no allegations of abuse. But when defense counsel attempted to impeach the officer with her own report, the officer testified that she “didn’t know if” she’d “documented” the alleged prior consistent accusation, and while she “would think [she] would have” written such information in the report, she “might not have.”  It would have been easy to prove conclusively that there was no such allegation: counsel just needed the CPS report. But she didn’t have it, because the state–in what it concedes was a violation of its Brady obligations–didn’t turn it over. SCOW now says “eh, who cares?” and reverses the court of appeals’ grant of a new trial.

State v. Tomas J. Hoyle, 2020AP1876-CR, petition for review of an unpublished opinion granted 9/14/22; case activity (including briefs)

Issue: (adapted from the State’s PFR):

The 5th Amendment prohibits a prosecutor from commenting  on defendant’s failure to to the stand. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965); Bies v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 322, 325-26, 193 N.W.2d 46 (1972). In a case where the defendant exercises his right not to testify, does the prosecution violate this prohibition by telling the jury that the victim’s account is “uncontroverted” and no evidence was offered to dispute it?

State v. T.M., 2021AP1729, 8/16/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Taylor” presented three challenges to the termination of her parental rights to her son: (1) erroneous admission of a psychological examination; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to object to a flawed jury instruction; and (3) insufficient evidence. The court of appeals rejected all of them.

State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, 2020AP1876-CR, 4/26/22, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Hoyle chose to remain silent at his trial for child sexual assault. During closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly argued that the testimony from “Hannah” (the complaining witness) was “uncontroverted” and told the jury it had “heard no evidence” and that there was “absolutely no evidence” disputing her account of the alleged sexual assault. Under the circumstances of this case, the court of appeals holds that the prosecutor’s arguments violated Hoyle’s Fifth Amendment rights.

State v. Jeffrey L. Hineman, 2020AP226-CR, petition for review of a per curiam opinion granted 4/13/22; reversed 1/10/23; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (from the State’s petition for review)

1. In cases involving credibility contests between a complaining witness (here, S.S.) and the defendant (Hineman), to what extent can a reviewing court reweigh the witnesses’ credibility in assessing whether, based on omitted evidence, there was a reasonable likelihood of a different result under the Brady materiality or Strickland prejudice standards?

2. The court of appeals also reached an abandoned Shiffra/Green issue and ordered in camera review of S.S.’s therapy files from his private therapist because the therapist acted as a mandatory reporter.

State v. Salar Zangana, 2020AP1228-CR, District 1, 6/29/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for appeal); case activity (including briefs)

At his trial on battery and disorderly conduct charges, Zangana tried to introduce a text message he received that purported to be an apology one of the complaining witnesses. (¶¶2-4). The message was properly excluded as hearsay and evidence about what the message meant was inadmissible because it involved privileged communication between spouses.

State v. Gerald J. Vanderhoef, 2016AP2052-CR, District 1, 4/30/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Vanderhoef’s silence in response to the “Informing the Accused” form constituted a refusal to consent to a chemical test, so the subsequent blood draw was unlawful. However, the state subpoenaed the results of his urine test, and that evidence was admissible.