On Point: D. Preliminary hearings

State v. Carlos Aguilar, 2022AP1826, 10/5/2023, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Aguilar with false imprisonment, which is a felony, and several misdemeanors relating to a domestic incident. At the original prelim, the circuit court dismissed the felony charge as not supported by probable cause. The state refiled and a second prelim was held, at which the state presented some additional testimony and some body cam footage. The circuit court again held there was not probable cause for the false imprisonment count, and again dismissed it. The state appealed. The court of appeals now reverses, rejecting Aguilar’s argument that the refiling should not have been allowed, and holding that the state showed probable cause at the second prelim; it thus remands for the case to proceed.

State v. Christopher S. Butler, 2021AP177, 5/9/23, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Butler with multiple sexual assaults of children. These charges resulted in a probation hold that lasted about four months; the ALJ did not revoke Butler and the hold was terminated. But Butler’s new charges were still pending, and he remained in jail for about another seven months while the public defender tried to find a lawyer to represent him. When that lawyer finally came on board, Butler had his initial appearance and then his prelim–about 11 months after he’d been arrested. Butler pleaded not guilty and his new attorney moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the long delay had deprived the circuit court of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, but the court of appeals granted Butler’s petition for interlocutory appeal. It now reverses and requires dismissal of the charges without prejudice.

There’s an interesting petition for writ of certiorari on this issue pending in SCOTUS. As this post from the Confrontation Blog explains: “The question is whether, or in what circumstances, the testimony of a prosecution witness at a preliminary hearing may be used at trial if the witness is then unavailable.  This is an issue on which the Supreme Court has not given any guidance since Crawford, and the petition ably shows that the lower courts are in clear dispute.”

State v. David E. Hull, 2015 WI App 46; case activity (including briefs)

The recently enacted statute allowing the admission of hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings is not an unconstitutional ex post facto law because it affects only the evidence that may be admitted at the preliminary hearing and does not alter the quantum or nature of evidence necessary to convict the defendant. In addition, the court commissioner properly refused to allow Hull to call the alleged victim to testify at the preliminary hearing because the anticipated testimony was not relevant to the probable cause inquiry.

State v. Cortez Lorenzo Toliver, 2014 WI 85, 7/23/14, affirming an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity

When a juvenile is charged with a crime that gives the criminal court exclusive original jurisdiction, § 970.032(1) expressly requires the judge conducting the preliminary hearing to find probable cause for the specific felony that gives the court jurisdiction. In this case the supreme court addresses what happens when the trial judge doesn’t follow the statute’s clear mandate. On Point asked Eileen Hirsch, an attorney with the SPD’s Madison Appellate Office and all-around juvenile law guru, to discuss the decision. Here’s her take:

 State v. O’Brien, et al., 2014 WI 54, 7/9/14, affirming published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity

The defendants challenged the constitutionality of recently enacted WI Stat. s. 970.038, which permits the use of hearsay at preliminary hearings, and allows a court to base a finding – that probable cause exists to hold a defendant for trial on a felony charge – entirely on hearsay. The Wisconsin Supreme Court cursorily rejected arguments that the new statute, as applied, violated their rights to confrontation, compulsory process, effective assistance of counsel and due process. Special Guest Marla Stephens, Director of the SPD’s Appellate Division, authored this post about the decision.

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Wis. Stat. § 970.038 (2011-12) makes hearsay evidence admissible at a criminal defendant’s preliminary examination and permits the probable cause determination and bindover decision at a preliminary examination to be based “in whole or in part” on hearsay evidence. Do these provisions violate a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to confront adversary witnesses,

State v. Martin P. O’Brien,  State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97.

As briefly noted in a previous post, the Court of Appeals has upheld Wis. Stat. § 970.038, which makes hearsay admissible at preliminary hearings and allows bindover based solely on hearsay. On Point is pleased to present this guest post about the decision by Attorney Marcus Berghahn,

State v. Martin P. O’Brien, State v. Kathleen M. O’Brien, and State v. Charles E. Butts, 2013 WI App 97; consolidated court of appeals decision; case activity: Martin O’Brien; Kathleen O’Brien; Charles Butts.

¶1        The newly enacted Wis. Stat. § 970.038 (2011-12) makes hearsay evidence admissible at a criminal defendant’s preliminary examination and permits the probable cause determination and bindover decision at a preliminary examination to be based “in whole or in part” on hearsay evidence.