On Point

State v. Danny Arthur Wright, 2021AP1252-CR, District 3, 05/16/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Wright with first degree sexual assault with use of a dangerous weapon. The alleged dangerous weapon at issue was a ZAP STICK. Wright filed a motion in limine to bar the state from calling a Detective to offer expert opinion testimony under Wis. Stat. § 907.02(1) and Daubert. The circuit court permitted the testimony after the state cautioned that it would not ask the detective whether the ZAP STICK used in Wright’s case was a dangerous weapon under the relevant statute. The court of appeals affirms on essentially the same basis: the detective’s testimony was permissible “expositional” testimony under State v. Dobbs, 2020 WI 64, 392 Wis. 2d 505, 945 N.W.2d 609, and not subject to the heightened reliability standard for expert opinion testimony.

State v. Heather L. Westrich, 2022AP2001-CR, District 4, 05/25/23 (one-judge opinion, not eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In State v. Lindell, 2001 WI 108, ¶¶42-43, 245 Wis. 2d 689, 629 N.W.2d 223, the court held a prospective juror to be objectively biased because she knew the victim for 20 years, her parents knew the victim for about 47 years, and she described the victim as a “close friend.” Apparently, a friend “back in the day” isn’t a close friend and doesn’t render a juror objectively biased. (Op., ¶¶14-15).

State v. R.A.M., 2023AP441, 6/6/23, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); petition for review granted 9/26/23; affirmed 6/25/24 case activity

R.A.M. was defaulted on grounds after she missed a single hearing. While the “hearing” was the fourth day of her TPR court trial, she had appeared at every prior hearing, including the first three days of trial.  As all too commonly happens, the circuit court determined that R.A.M.’s single non-appearance was “egregious and in bad faith and without justification” without ever hearing from her, and held that she had waived her right to counsel under Wis. Stat. § 48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals notes the paucity of grounds for this decision in a footnote, but as R.A.M. doesn’t challenge the finding of egregiousness, the opinion doesn’t otherwise address it. It does address what came next: rather than waiting the two days the same statute requires to hold a dispositional hearing after a counsel waiver, the court held the hearing on the same day and terminated R.A.M.’s rights.

State v. Brandon B. Smiley, 2022AP1522-CR, District 4, 6/2/23 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Smiley’s claim that the photo array shown to A.B., the complaining witness, was impermissibly suggestive and, therefore, her (not very confident) identification of him after looking at the array should have been suppressed.

On May 31, 2023, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Corey T. Rector, 2023 WI 41, 5/23/23 affirming a case certified by the court of appeals, 2020AP1213; case activity (including briefs)

Rector pleaded to five counts of possessing child pornography in a single case. He’d never been convicted of anything before. The sentencing judge ordered that he be placed on the sex offender registry until 15 years after the end of his sentence or supervision. The Department of Corrections then wrote the judge to say that, in its view, any two or more convictions of registry-eligible sex offenses trigger mandatory registration for life. The judge stuck to his guns and reiterated the 15-year registry requirement. The state appealed, and the court of appeals certified the case. The state supreme court now holds, 4-3, that Rector is not required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

A word to the wise: When you have ChatGPT write a brief for you, and in response to your query it tells you that the cases it is citing “are real and can be found in reputable legal databases,” don’t trust it without verification. So a New York lawyer has learned to his chagrin (and possibly […]

State v. Warner E. Solomon, 2022AP634-CR, District 2, 5/24/23 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals rejects Solomon’s argument that the police unlawfully extended a traffic stop to wait for a drug dog to arrive to do a thorough search of his car.

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 v. Jackson, 2023 WI 37, 5/12/23, dismissing as improvidently granted review of an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2019AP2383; case activity (including briefs)

Our post on the grant of review in this case said SCOW might use it to “expound on State v. Cooper, 2019 WI 73, 387 Wis. 2d 439, 929 N.W.2d 192 (IAC claims where counsel has been disciplined), Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)(prejudice prong in the plea context); Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) and Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012)(failure to communicate plea offer). There will be no expounding on those cases. Instead, SCOW dismisses the case as improvidently granted. That doesn’t mean there’s not any expounding to be had, though: Justices R.G. Bradley (in concurrence) and A.W. Bradley (in dissent) write to state their views on whether SCOW should explain itself when it DIGs.