On Point: Important Posts

State v. Morris V. Seaton, 2021AP1399-CR, 11/6/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In a case confirming the changes wrought to other acts case law as a result of the codification of the greater latitude rule, COA reverses the circuit court’s order excluding evidence of a prior sexual assault

State v. J.D.B., 2023AP715-CR, 9/10/24, District I (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25 case activity

In a recommended-for-publication decision, COA wholly endorses all of J.D.B.’s arguments requiring a high burden of proof when the State seeks an involuntary medication order in order to render a defendant competent to stand trial. Along the way, COA offers a bevy of helpful holdings that are also applicable outside of this highly-specialized practiced area.

United States of America v. Rahimi, USSC No. 22-915, 6/21/2024, reversing United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

In a much-anticipated Second Amendment decision, SCOTUS tries to clarify its turbulent precedent regarding firearm restrictions and offers a limited holding upholding a federal statute disarming persons subject to domestic abuse restraining orders so long as specific statutory elements are met.

State v. Kasey Ann Gomolla, 2022AP199-CR, 2/6/24, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity

Even if the court of appeals had not recommended this decision for publication, Gomolla’s case seems destined for further review. While the facts here are somewhat distinguishable from State v. Cross, 2010 WI 70, 326 Wis. 2d 492, 786 N.W.2d 64, Cross’ counter-intuitive holding, even with arguably “better” facts, seems to have hamstringed the court of appeals from acknowledging that a plea cannot be said to be “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” if the defendant does not know the correct maximum penalty. If we had to guess, SCOW will soon be considering whether to reconsider, limit, or overrule Cross. 

State v. Joshua L. Thering, 2023AP1253, 1/23/24, District 4 (1-judge decision, not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

While the court of appeals agrees the facts in Thering’s case are “similar in significant respects” to the SCOW-approved police encounter in County of Grant v. Vogt, 2014 WI 76, 356 Wis. 2d 343, 850 N.W.2d 253, the court concludes that the totality of the circumstances in Thering’s case “involved a meaningfully greater show of authority by police than in Vogt,” which was characterized as a “close case.” Therefore, the court reverses the circuit court’s order denying Thering’s motion to suppress and his judgment of conviction for OWI 2nd.

Smith v. Arizona, U.S.S.C. No. 22-899, cert. granted 9/29/23; Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

Question presented:

Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and (b) the defendant did not independently seek to subpoena the analyst.

State v. Aaron L. Jacobs, 2022AP658-659, 2022AP661-663, 9/19/23, District 3 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The key takeaway from this soon to be published court of appeals decision may seem obvious and inarguable, but as we’ll see below, the state pursued and the circuit court blessed what would have been a massive expansion of the most commonly charged crime in the state of Wisconsin: bail jumping.

Brown County v. Z.W.L., 2022AP2201, District 3, 9/12/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (briefs not available)

In yet another hearsay-based sufficiency challenge to a Chapter 51 commitment, Z.W.L. (“Zeb”) succeeds because the circuit court relied on inadmissible hearsay and no other evidence established that Zeb was dangerous. Specifically, while Zeb made admissible “party-opponent” statements to a crisis worker and a police officer, the county failed to call either direct witness to Zeb’s statements and instead relied on two witnesses who read about Zeb’s history. While the circuit court relied on a case manager’s testimony because “this is what case managers are supposed to do” and “to me, that’s an exception to any of the hearsay rules,” the court of appeals disagrees.

Winnebago County v. W.I., 2022AP2095, 08/30/2023, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

In addition to the two court ordered psycholigical examinations required under § 51.20(9)(a)1., subdivision 3 provides individual’s subject to potential involuntary civil commitment “a right” to an additional psychological examination. See Wis. Stat. § 51.20(9)(a)3. If requested, the cost of the examination is either (1) at the individual’s expense  or (2) “if indigent and with approval of the court hearing the petition, at the reasonable expense of the individual’s county of legal residence…” As a matter of first impression, the court of appeals holds that individuals seeking such an evaluation must satisfy an implied and unspecified burden of proof to establish indigency before the individual may obtain an additional examination at county expense. (Op., ¶¶8-9).

State v. C.D., 2023AP1025, District I, 8/29/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (briefs not available)

In an exciting defense win, District I signals a willingness to critically review default orders entered in Milwaukee County.