On Point blog, page 10 of 11
Juvenile Delinquency Disposition – Expelled Student; Supervisory Writs; Statutory Construction Principle – Titles
Madison Metropolitan School District v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2011 WI 72, affirming summary order; case activity
Juvenile Delinquency Disposition – Expelled Student
A juvenile delinquency court lacks authority to order a school district to provide educational services to a delinquent whom the district has expelled.
¶5 We conclude:
…
(2) A circuit court does not have statutory authority to order a school district to provide alternative educational services to a juvenile who has been expelled from school by a lawful and unchallenged expulsion order but is still residing in the community.
Appellate Procedure: Waiver (Lesser Offense Instruction) – Binding Authority (Overruled Court of Appeals Decision); Counsel: Deficient Performance – Unsettled Law; Voluntary Statements; Adult Jurisdiction over Juvenile: Post-Trial Reverse Waiver Procedure Constitutional
State v. Darron D. Jackson, 2011 WI App 63 (recommended for publication); for Jackson: Rebecca Lawnicki; case activity
Waiver – Lesser Offense Instruction
The jury convicted Jackson of recklessly endangering safety while armed, which was submitted as a lesser offense of the charged offense, attempted first-degree intentional homicide. Although Jackson did object to the endangering instruction on the ground that it wasn’t supported by the facts,
Delinquency – Serious Juvenile Offender Program
State v. Emanuel M., 2010AP2175, District 1, 3/15/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Emanuel M.: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
The trial court made the requisite findings for SJOP disposition, § 938.34(4h): the juvenile was at least 14 years old; the adjudication offense(s) qualified under the statute; correctional placement was the only other appropriate disposition (as to which, the trial court’s multiple references to “Wales”
State v. Eric A., 2010AP1161, District 3, 3/1/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Eric A.: pro se; case activity
Expungement – Delinquency Adjudication, § 938.355(4m)(a)
Denial of petition for expungement of repeated sexual assault of child adjudication is affirmed.
¶8 Here, the court determined that the offense was too serious, and it would be against public policy, to permit expungement. The court’s order stated society would be harmed by granting expungement.
Delinquency – Secure Detention Order
State v. Justin J., No. 2010AP1796, District 3, 1/19/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Justin J.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Secure detention of 30 days was proper exercise of discreiton:
¶10 In this case, the factors the court considered and its statements show that the court used a “rational and explainable” process to determine the thirty days’ secure detention.
Sufficiency of Evidence Review; Reverse Waiver; Sentence – Exercise of Discretion
State v. Carl Morgan, 2009AP74-CR, District III, 7/20/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Morgan: Ralph Sczygelski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Sufficiency of Evidence Review
Review of a denied motion for dismissal at the close of the prosecutor’s case-in-chief is waived where the defendant proceeds to put in a defense. All the evidence, including the defense presentation,
Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2); Comment on Truthfulness; Self-Incrimination – Waiver – Examination by Expert
State v. Corey Kleser, 2010 WI 88, affirming in part, reversing in part, 2009 WI App 43; for Kleser: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2) – Generally
¶69 Nothing in § 970.032(2) places a limitation on the evidence at a reverse waiver hearing so long as the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence and is relevant to one or more of the three elements set out in the subsection.
Delinquency – Notice
State v. Justin H., No. 2009AP2935, District III, 6/29/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Justin H.: Leonard D. Kachinsky
¶9 However, even assuming Justin properly preserved a due process argument, we reject it. Due process principles require that a juvenile against whom a delinquency petition has been filed be given “notice … sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings … set[ting] forth the alleged misconduct with particularity.” State v.
State v. Robert H., 2009AP1975, Dist III 1/20/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)
Delinquency Petition – Time Limit
Time limit for filing petition continues running during gap between date intake worker requests petition and date request actually filed with DA’s office, therefore this petition untimely; on remand trial court is to determine “proper remedy,” which may be dismissal, but not necessarily.
Hearsay Rule – Applicability – Reverse (Juvenile) Waiver, § 970.032(2)
State v. Corey Kleser, 2009 WI App 43, PFR filed 4/9/09
For Kleser: Robin E. Dorman, SPD Milwaukee Trial; Debra Flynn-Parrino, Devon M. Lee, SPD, Milwaukee Juvenile
Issue/Holding:
¶46 Wisconsin Stat. § 970.032(2) makes no provision for the admission of hearsay at a reverse waiver hearing. Where a statute does not specifically authorize hearsay, it is generally prohibited, see Wis. Stat.