On Point: Uncategorized

We know it has been quite some time since we checked in with the Seventh. Mostly, that’s because the pace of the Court slowed down quite a bit toward the end of the year. We wanted to make this post more substantive, so we’ve combined the last few months into one update. As usual, we’ve tried to focus on cases with potential relevance to state court practitioners and thereby omit several interesting cases about federal procedure or federal statutory interpretation:

State of Wisconsin v. Alsherrife Mire, 2024AP2481-CR, 2/4/26, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In a decision recommended for publication, the COA affirmed the circuit court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the fruits of his allegedly unlawfully extended traffic stop because evidence of his flight from police was not derived from the stop.

State v. Noah Q. Mann-Tate, 2024AP2585-CR, 2/3/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity

In a massively consequential decision, COA reaffirms the uniqueness of children facing criminal charges and finds our notoriously-stringent reverse waiver statute unconstitutional as a result.

Columbia County v. T.R.B., 2025AP1972, 1/8/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

T.R.B. argues on appeal that the dangerousness evidence at the recommitment hearing was inadmissible hearsay, that the circuit court relied on that inadmissible hearsay in making its factual findings, and that with the hearsay evidence properly excluded, the county did not present sufficient evidence of his dangerousness. COA rejects his challenges, concluding that there was sufficient nonhearsay evidence in the record but looking to testimony from the initial commitment and taking judicial notice of outside facts.

State v. B.M.T.,  2025AP1745-50, 11/21/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In this appeal from an involuntary medication order, COA provides additional guidance as to how the “seriousness” of a crime is determined and rejects a challenge that the medication plan was insufficiently individualized.

Racine County v. R.P.L., , 2025AP813-FT, petition for review of a unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 11/17/25

In a surprise grant outside the usual petition conference cycle, SCOW accepts review of a case involving the evidentiary requirements for an annual review of a protective placement issue.

State v. Jonathan James Petersen, 2024AP581-CR, 11/19/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The COA recommended publication of its decision to affirm a ban on social media as a condition of extended supervision for a defendant convicted of stalking, false imprisonment, and making terrorist threats.

Waukesha County v. R.D.T., 2024AP1390, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, granted 11/17/25; case activity

SCOW granted R.D.T.’s petition for review to address: 1) whether the appeal from his recommitment is moot where the commitment expired but he remained liable for the costs of care and subject to a firearm ban; and 2) whether the circuit court made sufficient factual findings grounded in admissible evidence to support R.D.T.’s recommitment. 

State v. Max Bell, 2024AP1923-CR, 2024AP1924-CR, & 2024AP1925-CR, 11/13/25, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Whether to join cases for trial is a separate inquiry from whether to sever cases that have been joined.  While the severance subsection of the joinder statute, Wis. Stat. § 971.12(3), directs the circuit court to sever charges if a party is prejudiced by joinder, the circuit court is not required by statute to consider prejudice when determining whether charges should be joined.  See Wis. Stat. § 971.12(1),(4).  Nevertheless, the COA held in a decision recommended for publication that a circuit court is permitted to consider prejudice when making its initial joinder decision.  The COA affirmed joinder of Max Bell’s charges for trial and his subsequent convictions in each case.

Terence L. Jannke v. Michael Gierach, No. 23-2485, 11/17/25

In yet another appeal that reiterates the hoops through which petitioners must jump, the Court rejects Jannke’s claims on procedural grounds and affirms.