On Point

Andrew v. White, USSC No. 23-6573 (per curiam), 1/21/25, vacating Andrew v. White, 62 F.4th 1299 (10th Cir. 2023); Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

In a rare defense win (of sorts) on federal habeas in the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS clarifies that its decision in Payne v. Tennessee “clearly established” the rule that when “evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a mechanism for relief.”

Price County v. C.N.S., 2024AP853, District III, 1/22/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

Appellant CNS wins a battle but loses the war as the COA affirms the circuit court’s order extending her commitment under Ch. 51, but reverses order authorizing involuntary medication.  The Court clarified that a circuit court meets D.J.W.’s requirement to make a specific factual finding with reference to the subparagraph of Wis. Stat. § 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based if the circuit court’s oral ruling referred to the wording of the statute, even if the court did not cite the specific subparagraph.

In a set of non-criminal opinions, SCOW issues new guidance on the commonly-invoked rule that COA is not at liberty to disagree with its own precedents and also takes another run at clarifying when a final order is truly “final” for the purposes of appeal.

State v. T.D.V., 2024AP2057-FT, 1/22/25, District II (ineligible for publication); case activity

The State fails to adequately respond to T.D.V.’s argument that his substitution request was improperly denied, so COA remands the matter for a new trial.

State v. Grady, 2023AP1464-CR, petition for review of a summary disposition order, granted 1/16/25; affirmed 6/13/25 case activity

With an increasingly rare review grant, SCOW signals its willingness to address the mechanics by which Zoom hearings are conducted so as ensure due process guarantees are observed.

Monroe County v. H.K.B., 2024AP1305, District 4, 1/16/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

On appeal from the two most recent Watts review hearings, the COA concludes that there was insufficient evidence for the protective placement order because the County failed to prove that H.K.B. was “so totally incapable of providing for . . . her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to . . . herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(c).under Wis. Stat. § 55.08(1)(c).

State v. Holly J. Grimslid, 2024AP954, 1/16/24, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA holds that, even if officer’s actions denying the defendant’s request to use the bathroom while he waited to obtain warrant for a blood draw were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, suppressing evidence of the blood draw is not a viable remedy.

State v. Christopher A. Gore, 2023AP169-CR, 1/7/25, District III (recommended for publication), case activity

The Court of Appeals held, in a decision recommended for publication, that Christopher Gore’s consent to a blood draw was voluntary because he was not misinformed about the consequences of refusing to consent, and the officer’s statement that he would seek to obtain a warrant if Gore did not consent did not invalidate his consent.

Wood County v. P.J.L., 2024AP2098-FT, 1/9/25, District IV (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a chapter 55 appeal arising from a somewhat unusual posture–a continued protective placement order following a jury trial–COA’s invocation of an exceedingly deferential standard of review results in affirmance.

In October, November and December, COA ordered several cases published which are relevant to our practice: