On Point: Important Posts

On March 29, 2023, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Morris V. Seaton, 2021AP1399-CR, certification granted 3/24/23;  remanded, 2023 WI 69;District 2; case activity (including briefs) case activity (including briefs)

Question presented (from the court of appeals’ certification):

In light of the 2014 amendment of WIS. STAT. § 904.04(2)(b) (2019-20), codifying and expanding the “greater latitude” rule and the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Dorsey, 2018 WI 10, ¶¶23-25, 379 Wis. 2d 386, 906 N.W.2d 158, interpreting and applying that amendment, are State v. Alsteen, 108 Wis. 2d 723, 324 N.W.2d 426 (1982), and State v. Cofield, 2000 WI App 196, 238 Wis. 2d 467, 618 N.W.2d 214, still controlling law as they relate to the admissibility of prior nonconsensual sexual wrongs in cases involving an adult victim of an alleged sexual assault where consent is the primary issue?

State v. Y.P.V., 2022AP1935-36, 3/21/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

The court of appeals reversed and remanded this TPR for two reasons. First, the mom made a prima facie case that her “no contest” plea to grounds was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because, during the plea colloquy, the circuit court misstated the law that would apply during the disposition. Then, at the disposition phase, the circuit court failed to apply the proper standard of law and misstated an important fact.

The filing of an Emergency Protective Placement petition under §55.135(1) triggers a probable cause hearing within 72 hours. Once the court finds probable cause it may order a temporary protective placement for up to 30 days pending a hearing on a permanent protective placement. Wis. Stat. §55.135(5). Sometimes the client wants to exercise her right to an independent comprehensive evaluation under §55.10(4)(e) and §55.11(2), yet has trouble finding a doctor who can complete it within 30 days. May the client stipulate to extend the temporary protective placement so that she can obtain the evaluation?

Milwaukee County v. D.H., 2022AP1402, 3/7/23, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

To obtain an involuntary medication order, a county must satisfy the multi-step test for incompetency to make medication decisions in §51.61(1)(g)4. The first step requires the county to prove that the person received a “reasonable explanation” of the advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives to medication. The examiner can’t just testify that she complied with the statute. She must tell the court what she told the person about the medication. In “Dan’s” case, the court of appeals reversed the involuntary medication order because the county failed this step.

State v. Oscar C. Thomas, 2023 WI 9, 2/21/23, affirming a published court of appeals decision; 2020AP32; case activity (including briefs)

As on quite a few previous occasions, our high court has issued a decision without a single majority one can cite for the holdings on each issue presented. Unlike on some of those occasions, this time the lead opinion does not purport to make law it cannot make; it instead signposts which opinion is law for which issue. The upshot of all this writing and signposting, though, is that the court affirms the published court of appeals decision on more or less identical-and well-trodden–legal grounds.

Outagamie County v. L.X.D.-O., 2023 WI App 17; case activity

Unfortunately, the court of appeals just turned Chapter 51 upside down in a published opinion. It holds that counties must move examiners’ reports into evidence at recommitment hearings, but not at initial commitment hearings. This appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support an involuntary medication order entered following an initial commitment. The court of appeals held that the doctor’s testimony was insufficient to support the order, but the doctor’s report, which was not moved into evidence, filled the gaps. It thus affirmed the med order.

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.

USA v. Jeremy D. Banks, Appeal No. 22-1312 (7th Cir. Feb. 13, 2023).

Banks, a convicted felon, posted a video on Snapchat showing himself barbequing on his front porch with a gun nearby. Officers saw the video and raced to his house without a warrant. They walked onto Banks’s porch, caught him by surprise, engaged in a tussle, and arrested him in his front room where they spotted a box of ammunition and found a semi-automatic pistol in his pocket. The 7th Circuit held that police needed a warrant to enter the porch and house. The evidence should have been suppressed.

On February 22, 2023, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decision:

State v. Ayodeji J. Aderemi, 2023 WI App 8 (delay in upload of information on efiling system didn’t deprive circuit court of jurisdiction in criminal case)