On Point: 30. Pretrial proceedings

State v. Michael Joseph Gasper, 2023AP2319, 10/30/24, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court held that an officer’s warrantless inspection of a cyber tip digital video file provided to the officer and identified as child pornography by a private internet service provider constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The COA concludes that Gasper did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the video, which he uploaded to Snapchat in violation of the terms of service and reverses.

State v. Richard A. Hoeft, 2021AP1636, 10/1/24, District 3 (one-judge appeal; ineligible for publication); case activity

Hoeft, pro se, appeals a jury verdict convicting him of fraud on an innkeeper and an order denying his postconviction motion. Hoeft raises numerous claims on appeal, all of which the COA rejects as “largely undeveloped and lacking merit” and affirms.

State v. Jayden Adams, 2023AP218-CR, 7/23/24, District 1 (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25, voluntarily dismissed 3/5/25, case activity

Adams appealed a nonfinal order denying his motion for discovery prior to his Wis. Stat. § 970.032(1) preliminary examination and his motion for reverse waiver to juvenile court. Despite holding that juvenile defendants have a limited right to discovery before a prelim under State v. Klesser, 2010 WI 88, 328 Wis. 2d 42, 786 N.W.2d 144, the COA concludes that Adams was not entitled to the discovery he requested in this case. The COA also concludes that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in denying the reverse waiver.

State v. Mitchell D. Butschle, 2023AP2120-CR, 5/8/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from a conviction for operating with a detectable controlled substance, the court rejects Butschle’s claims that police lacked probable cause to arrest. The court affirms because “there were enough indicators of impairment to satisfy probable cause to arrest, including (1) “a strong odor of alcohol,” (2) “Butschle’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy,” (3) “the stop occurred just after 2:00 a.m., which is bar time,” and (4) “Butschle failed the HGN test and showed balance indicators on the other two [FSTs].” Op., ¶¶10-11.

State v. Jacob Richard Beyer, 2022AP2051, 1/11/24, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Although Beyer labors mightily at conjuring up legal arguments for reversal, COA is uniformly unpersuaded and unimpressed by his arguments and affirms.

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.

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. Debra L. Rippentrop & Steven E. Rippentrop, 2023 WI App 15; case activity (including briefs) 2022AP92-CR and 2022AP93-CR

The nonprosecution agreement the Rippentrops made with the state doesn’t violate public policy and is therefore enforceable, and that requires the criminal charges filed against them to be dismissed with prejudice.

R.G. v. S.P., 2022AP1876, District 4, 02/16/2023 (one judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

R.G. filed a petition to voluntarily terminate his parental rights to a non-marital child that he had not seen in over seven years. The circuit court dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. R.G. pursued an appeal pro se, arguing that Wis. Stat. § 48.185 supported his petition in Dane County.