On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity

Issue Presented (composed by On Point)

What is the proper remedy when, in a ch. 51 recommitment proceeding, the circuit court fails to make specific factual findings with reference to the statutory basis for its determination of dangerousness as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277?

State v. Robert Daris Spencer, 2018AP942-CR, petition for review, and petition for cross review, of an unpublished court of appeals decision, both granted 8/13/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (composed by On Point from the PFR and cross PFR)

1.  Was the circuit court’s ex parte voir dire and removal of a juror during trial a structural error requiring automatic reversal, or is it subject to harmless error analysis?
2. Did the circuit court improperly consider the race of the defendant and the witnesses in deciding to dismiss juror?
3. Is a defendant entitled to a postconviction hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the record conclusively shows the claim should be denied?

Daniel Doubek v. Joshua Kaul, 2020AP704, certification granted June 16, 2021; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from Court of Appeals’ Certification):

Are Evans v. DOJ, 2014 WI App 31, 353 Wis. 2d 289, 844 N.W.2d 403, and Leonard v. State, 2015 WI App 57, 364 Wis. 2d 491, 868 N.W.2d 186, “good law” in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.

State v. George Steven Burch, 2021 WI 68, on certification from the court of appeals, affirming the judgment of conviction; case activity (including briefs)

We said in our post on the court of appeals’ certification that this case presented novel and important issues about searches of cell phones and their data. So we anticipated a decision addressing the parameters of police searches of digital devices. But the majority doesn’t address those issues or decide whether Burch’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Instead, the majority holds that, regardless of the lawfulness of the search of Burch’s cell phone data, “there was no police misconduct to trigger application of the exclusionary rule.” (¶26). The majority’s approach bodes ill for the future of Fourth Amendment litigation and the freedom the Fourth Amendment is intended to protect—as illustrated by this case, given that a majority of the justices (one concurring, three dissenting) concludes the search of Burch’s phone data violated the Fourth Amendment.

State v. George Steven Burch, 2021 WI 68, 6/29/21, on certification from the court of appeals, affirming a judgment of conviction; case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the state to introduce evidence relating to Fitbit data without requiring expert testimony on the reliability of the device.

State v. Anthony M. Schmidt, 2021 WI 65, 6/18/21, on bypass from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

“We also conclude that the child pornography surcharge applies to images of child pornography that form the basis of read-in charges of sexual exploitation of a child or possession of child pornography, so long as those images of child pornography are connected to and brought into relation with the convicted individual’s offense of sexual exploitation of a child or possession of child pornography.” (¶61). What does it mean for images to be “brought into relation with” an offense? What kind of inquiry is it? Factual? Legal? We don’t know, the partial dissent doesn’t know, and as it observes, the majority seems also not to know, as they refrain from addressing any facts but the ones before them. The most reliable SCOW imperative–upholding criminal sanctions–seems once again to have made the “law development” function an afterthought.

Cheyne Monroe v. Chad Chase, 2021 WI 66, 6/22/21, on certification from the court of appeals and reversing a circuit court judgment; case activity (including briefs)

One of the elements of a claim for malicious prosecution is that the baseless prior action must have terminated in favor of the party asserting malicious prosecution. The supreme court holds this element may be met even when the party accused of malicious prosecution voluntarily dismissed the allegedly baseless proceeding before it was decided on the merits.

State v. Alan M. Johnson, 2021 WI 61, 6/16/21, affirming in part and reversing in part a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

In a case presenting a highly unusual set of facts, the supreme court agrees with the court of appeals that Johnson is entitled to a new trial because the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on perfect self-defense. However, the supreme court reverses the court of appeals’ decision as to the admissibility of other-acts evidence relating to the victim.

State v. Westley D. Whitaker, 2020AP29-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals granted 6/16/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues Presented (from the PFR and supreme court order granting review)

1. Does it violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution to consider a defendant’s religious identity and impose a sentence intended to deter crime solely within his religious community?
2. If a sentencing court may consider a defendant’s religious association to deter other members of a religious community, does the “reliable nexus” test of State v. Fuerst, 181 Wis. 2d 903, 512 N.W.2d 243 (Ct. App. 1994), and State v. J.E.B., 161 Wis. 2d 655, 469 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1991), require congruity between the offense and the activity protected by the First Amendment?
3. Does the sentencing factor/objective of “protection of the public” permit the sentencing court to increase the sentence imposed on the defendant to send a message to an identified set of third parties that they should alter their behavior in the future, apart from generally being deterred from committing offenses like those committed by the defendant? (Added by the supreme court.)

State v. Christopher W. Yakich, 2019AP1832-CR & 2019AP1833-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals granted 6/16/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issue Presented (from the PFR):

When a defendant has been found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in two separate cases and is subject to two separate commitment orders, does the circuit court have authority to run the terms of commitment consecutive to one another?