On Point: F. Instructions

State v. Antonio Darnell Mays, 2022 WI App 24; case activity (including briefs)

Mays was accused of forcing his way into an apartment with and firing a gun at at least one of its occupants. One occupant fired back; in the end, two people were dead. The state initially charged Mays with, among other things, a reckless homicide for each of the deaths. But when, at trial, the evidence suggested that one of the decedents had been shot not by Mays, but by the occupant returning fire at Mays, the state moved to amend the information as to that death to charge felony murder instead. Mays opposed the amendment, and ultimately the state instead convinced the court to instruct the jury on felony murder as a lesser-included offense of reckless homicide. The jury convicted Mays of this lesser-included (and other counts).

State v. Michael T. Dewey, 2021AP174-CR, District 4, 4/14/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Dewey was charged with three dozen counts of child sexual assault related crimes alleged to have occurred during various times between 2005 and 2013. He argues the charging periods for most of the counts were “too long and disjointed” to allow him to prepare an adequate defense and that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not objecting to jury instructions for five of the counts on the ground that the three non-continuous time periods charged for those counts failed to protect his right to a unanimous verdict. The court of appeals rejects his arguments.

State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2021 WI App 89; case activity (including briefs)

McAdory was charged with driving with a detectable amount of restricted controlled substances—cocaine and THC—and driving under the influence of those substances. At trial, the state convinced the trial judge to modify the standard jury instruction for the latter charge, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2664, by deleting the statement that not every person who has consumed controlled substances is “under the influence.” This modification, coupled with the prosecutor’s closing argument that it had proven its case by proving McAdory had a detectable amount of the substances, effectively relieved the state of its burden to prove that McAdory was “under the influence.”

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from State’s petition for review)

1. How does a court consider the theory of guilt in an evidence sufficiency claim when an inconsistency exists between a jury instruction and verdict?

2. Must a court accept a jury’s resolution of any vagueness in testimony as jury credibility and weight determinations and must a court then adopt the reasonable inferences that a jury may have drawn from the evidence?

3. Has Coughlin, as the defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, met his heavy burden to overcome the great deference this Court gives to the jury and its verdict to satisfy that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State and the convictions, was insufficient to sustain the 15 guilty verdicts relating to his sexual assaults of John Doe 2 and John Doe 3?

State v. Jacky Lee, 2020AP1633, 7/27/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state arrested Lee for second-offense OWI and PAC violations. The intoximeter breath test he took at the police department was video-recorded. However, due to the state’s delay in charging Lee, he did not request the video until it had already been recorded over, consistent with the department’s practice of keeping such videos for 3-6 months unless there’s been a request to preserve them.

State v. Michael J. Foster, 2020AP2149-CR, District 4, 7/29/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A defendant claiming that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ask for a theory of defense jury instruction must propose the language the instruction should have included and establish it is a correct statement of the law. Absent such a proposed instruction, the ineffective claim will fail.

State v. Alan M. Johnson, 2021 WI 61, 6/16/21, affirming in part and reversing in part a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

In a case presenting a highly unusual set of facts, the supreme court agrees with the court of appeals that Johnson is entitled to a new trial because the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on perfect self-defense. However, the supreme court reverses the court of appeals’ decision as to the admissibility of other-acts evidence relating to the victim.

State v. Theophilous Ruffin, 2019AP1046-CR, District 1, 3/9/21 (not recommended for publication), state’s petition for review granted 9/17/21; reversed, 2022 WI 34; case activity (including briefs)

Ruffin raises three challenges to how the jury was instructed at his trial. Two are rejected in all respects, but one—regarding trial counsel’s decision to withdraw a self defense instruction—gets him a Machner hearing.

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, District 4, 3/4/21 (not recommended for publication), state’s petition for review granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)

In 2010 Coughlin was charged with over 20 counts of having sexual contact with three different children during various periods between 1989 and 1994. The court of appeals holds the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the counts involving  two of the children.

State v. Chidiebele Praises Ozodi, 2019AP886-CR, District 2, 12/16/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The legislature amended § 939.42 in 2013 Wis. Act 307 to eliminate the defense of voluntary intoxication when the intoxication negated the existence of a requisite mental state, like intent or knowledge. But because the state has the burden of proving every element of an offense, including the mental state, there’s a due process argument that evidence of intoxication that might negate that element is relevant and admissible, despite the absence of a statutory defense of voluntary intoxication. (¶27 & n.4). If that’s so, then what, if anything, should the court tell the jury about how to use that evidence?