On Point

Be sure to check out today’s Inside Track article “We Need to Recognize the Implicit Bias in Wisconsin’s Youth Justice System” by ASPD Alaina K. Fahley. Black and White youths engage in delinquent behaviors at similar rates. But while Black youth constitute only 11.2% of the Wisconsin youth population, they make up almost 25% of […]

State v. A.H., 2022AP1454, 12/6/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

The sole issue in this TPR appeal is whether the circuit court failed to consider the “best interests” of D.H.’s daughter. D.H. noted that the circuit court’s oral decision “wholly omits consideration of and reference to the best interest factor.” Opinion, ¶13. That argument failed because the circuit court is not required to “utter any magic words” when performing its “best interests” analysis. Opinion, ¶16 (citing State v. Robert K., 2005 WI 152, ¶33, 286 Wis. 2d 143, 706 N.W.2d 257).

State v. Christopher D. Wilson, 2022 WI 77, 11/23/22, reversing an unpublished decision of the court of appeals, 2020AP1014; case activity (including briefs)

Someone called the police to report that a vehicle was driving erratically “all over the road.” The caller said the car had stopped in the alley behind a particular house and described its driver getting out, climbing up on the fence to reach over an unlatch a gate, and going into the backyard.

State v. C.B. & State v. N.M.M., 2022AP906 & 966, 11/29/22, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

C.B. and N.M.M. appeal the termination of their parental rights. They challenge the method the Milwaukee Clerk of Courts used to select the venire for their trial: drawing from a pool of “reserve jurors” and selecting those whose surnames began with “G” and “H.” They further request a new trial because there were no African Americans on the panel.

Racine County v. P.B., 2022 WI App 62; case activity

Section 54.42(5) and 55.10(4) give a person undergoing guardianship and protective placement the “right to  be present” a the final hearing. Sections 54.44(4)(a) and 55.10(2) further require the county to ensure that the person “attends” the final hearing, unless the GAL waives attendance. In a published decision, the court of appeals holds that these statutes protect the person’s right to be physically present. Attendance by phone or video under §§885.58 and 885.60 does not suffice.

State v. Jeffrey L. Moeser, 2022 WI 76, 11/23/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The Fourth Amendment requires that warrants shall not be issued except upon probable cause “supported by Oath or affirmation.” The officer who applied for a warrant to draw Moeser’s blood after an OWI arrest made no oral oath or affirmation before signing the affidavit in support of the warrant or before the judicial officer who approved the warrant. (¶8). But that doesn’t make the warrant invalid, because oath or affirmation is a matter of substance, not form, and it’s clear that the officer manifested an intent to be bound by his statement under circumstances that emphasize the need to tell the truth.

State v. Cartrell Romel Kimble, 2021AP1227-CR, Distirct 1, 11/29/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The prosecutor’s closing argument didn’t amount to “vouching” for the credibility of the pretrial statements of two recanting witnesses.

On November 30, 2022, the court of appeals ordered publication of a single civil case.

State v. X.B.A.-S., 2022AP944-946, 11/29/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

When a circuit court finds a juvenile not competent to proceed in a delinquency proceeding but likely to regain, may it “counsel and close” the related JIPS cases per §938.34(1)? Or must it enter dispositional orders requiring periodic reexaminations of the juvenile per §938.30(5)(e)? Siding with the State, the court of appeals chose the latter option.

L.E.H. v. R.E.M., 2022AP713-715, 11/22/11, District 1; (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Luke” and “Rebecca” had 3 children together. After their relationship ended, Rebecca struggled with addiction and was charged with a number of crimes. Luke married and successfully petitioned to terminate Rebecca’s parental rights.  Rebecca appealed the TPR arguing the circuit court (1) improperly granted summary judgment on the grounds that she abandoned her children, and (2) created the appearance of bias during the disposition hearing.