On Point blog, page 5 of 29
Defense win! Landlord’s conviction for failure to return security deposits reversed
State v. Troy R. Lasecki, 2020 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)
Wonders never cease. The State charged Lasecki with 2 counts of failure to return security deposits to tenants in violation of Wis. Admin Code. §ATCP 134.06(2) and §§100.20(2) and 100.26(3)(2013-3104). Lasecki proceeded pro se at trial, and a jury convicted on both counts. His appeal drew amicus briefs from the Apartment Ass’n for Southeastern Wisconsin, the Univ. of Wis. Law School and from the Attorney General about whether the statute and code criminalized the failure to return rent. Answer: “yes.” but Lasecki won anyway because the jury instructions were erroneous and the court erred in ordering restitution above the victim’s pecuniary losses.
Witness’s blurted comment during testimony did not warrant mistrial
State v. Kieuta Z, Perry, 2019AP270-CR, 5/12/20, District 1, (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The State charged Perry with armed robbery and 1st degree recklessly endangering safety with use of a dangerous weapon both as a party to a crime, along with possession of a firearm by a felon. During cross-exam a witness blurted out “Didn’t [Perry] shoot somebody in the head before he shot me? That’s what I heard.” Defense counsel moved to strike and then later for a mistrial.
SCOTUS holds Constitution requires unanimous jury in state criminal trials
Ramos v. Louisiana, USSC No. 18-5924, 2020 WL 1906545, 4/20/20, reversing State v. Ramos, 231 So. 3d 44 (La. Ct. Apps. 2017); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
The holding in this case has no relevance to Wisconsin practitioners, or indeed anyone outside of Louisiana or Oregon–the only two jurisdictions permitting 10-2 guilty verdicts in criminal trials. The Sixth Amendment requires unanimity in federal trials, and our state supreme court has long held the Wisconsin Constitution confers the same right. See Holland v. State, 91 Wis. 2d 134, 138, 280 N.W.2d 288 (1979). So if you’re interested only in the impact on your practice, there is none, and you can stop reading now.
Whose ox was gored? COA upholds inconsistent verdicts
State v. Corey Stauner, 2019AP81-CR, District 3, 3/10/20, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This seems wrong. The State charged Stauner with resisting an officer and bail jumping for committing that crime. The jury acquitted him of resisting an officer but found him guilty of bail jumping. The court of appeals recognized that the 2 verdicts were inconsistent, but said that this result was permissible pursuant to State v. Rice, 2008 WI App 10, 307 Wis. 2d 335, 743 N.W.2d 517 (2007).
Black prospective juror arrested during jury service
The Legal Profession Blog reports on an ugly murder case out of New Jersey. Click here. A prosecutor tried to remove a Black prospective juror, F.G., for cause. When the judge ruled against the State, the prosecutor ran a records check on F.G., found a warrant and told the judge. The judge and the prosecutor then decided to dismiss F.G., wish him a good day, and have him arrested outside the presence of the jury pool.
“True threat” instruction wasn’t needed at disorderly conduct trial
State v. Kaprisha E. Greer, 2019AP806-CR, District 1, 1/22/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Greer seeks a new trial in the interest of justice on the ground that the jury at her disorderly conduct trial should have been instructed about the meaning of “true threat” because the state elicited evidence about a threat during its case-in-chief. The court of appeals rejects her claim.
Court of appeals infers juror’s impartiality from silence in response to question
State v. N.M.A.-S., 2018AP2308-09, 12/17/19, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This TPR case involves a mom with a substance abuse problem and her daughter who had ingested morphine. At the trial on grounds, defense counsel asked the jury pool: “Is there anyone that believes that someone who is struggling with an addiction currently is not fit to parent their children?”
DA argues: “Defense attorneys’ jobs are to manipulate the truth”
Actually, the DA argued: “My job is to show the truth. On the other hand, the defense attorneys’ jobs are to manipulate the truth. Their job is to shroud the truth. Their job is [to] confuse jurors. Their job is to do whatever they have to—without regard for the truth—to get a not guilty verdict.” The South Carolina Supreme Court had the good sense to overturn this defendant’s conviction for order and order a new trial.
Standard OWI jury instruction sufficiently conveyed meaning of “impaired”
State v. Kari E. Mravik, 2018AP2300-CR, District 4, 8/29/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
At her OWI 2d trial, Mravik asked the judge to modify Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2663’s definition of “under the influence of an intoxicant.” The trial judge declined. The court of appeals finds no error because the instruction as a whole conveys the correct meaning of the phrase.
Defense wrestles State into conceding Batson error, but doesn’t get new trial
State v. Patrick D. Zolliecoffer, 2018AP1639-CR, 8/20/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Zolliecoffer challenged two of the State’s peremptory strikes as racially based. On appeal, the State conceded that the circuit court failed to apply the 3-step procedure for analyzing Batson claims, which On Point recently explained here. Zolliecoffer urged the court of appeals to remand for a new trial. The State sought a remand to apply Batson. Surprise! The State won.