On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

Milwaukee City Housing Authority v. Cobb, 2015 WI 27, reversing a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity (including briefs)

A tenant living in federally subsidized housing does not need to be given an opportunity to remedy the default when he or she violates the lease by engaging in “drug-related criminal activity” because federal law governing subsidized public housing preempts state law right-to-remedy requirements.

State v. Gary Monroe Scull, 2015 WI 22, 3/5/16, affirming a published court of appeals decision; lead opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity (including briefs)

In a decision that fails to engage the real issue presented in the case, the supreme court holds that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule recognized in State v. Eason, 2001 WI 98, 245 Wis. 2d 206, 629 N.W.2d 625, allows the admission of evidence seized using a search warrant that was based on information collected in violation of Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1417-18 (2013).

State v. Eddie Lee Anthony, 2015 WI 20, affirming unpublished COA decision; click here for docket and briefs

Resolving an issue of first impression, SCOW has decided that a defendant may forfeit his constitutional right to testify by stating an intent to bring up irrelevant matters or by engaging in conduct incompatible with the assertion of that right. Also, the erroneous denial of the right to testify is subject to a harmless error analysis–even where the record shows the defendant would testify to both relevant and irrelevant matters.

State v. Danny Robert Alexander, 2015 WI 6, 1/27/15), reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity

Alexander claimed he is entitled to resentencing because his sentence was based in part on compelled statements he made to his supervision agent. The supreme court rejects his claim after concluding that the circuit court did not rely on the compelled statements in imposing sentence.

State v. Richard Harrison, 2015 WI 5, 1/22/15, affirming a summary disposition of the court of appeals; opinion by Chief Justice Abrahamson; case activity

The supreme court unanimously holds that a circuit judge erred by presiding over Harrison’s trial, sentencing, and postconviction motions after Harrison filed a timely and proper § 971.20 request for substitution of the judge, the request was granted, and a new judge was appointed. The court rejects the state’s claims that Harrison forfeited his right to substitution and that any error was harmless.

State v. Michael Alger & State v. Ronald Knipfer, 2015 WI 3, 1/20/15, affirming two published court of appeals decisions,: Alger, 2013 WI App 148; Knipfer, 2014 WI App 9; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity: Alger; Knipfer

The supreme court holds that the Daubert standard for expert testimony does not apply to discharge proceedings in a ch. 980 case if the original petition for commitment was filed before the effective date of the adoption of the Daubert standard. The court also holds there are no due process or equal protection problems in applying one evidentiary standard to cases in which the original petition was filed before the effective date and a different evidentiary standard to cases filed after that date.

Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issue (composed by On Point)

Can a police officer’s reasonable mistake of law give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause necessary to uphold a seizure under article I, §11 of the Wisconsin constitution?

State v. Cassius A. Foster, 2014 WI 131, 12/26/14, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition; majority opinion by Justice Crooks; case activity

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2014 WI 132, 12/26/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity

State v. Michael R. Tullberg, 2014 WI 134, 12/26/14, affirming a per curiam court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; case activity

In these three cases, the supreme court addresses two issues arising from Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013): If a blood draw was conducted before McNeely in reliance on State v. Bohling, 173 Wis. 2d 529, 494 N.W.2d 399 (1993), does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule mean the test results should not be suppressed? And, if the dissipation of alcohol by itself doesn’t constitute exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless blood draw, what circumstances do establish such an exigency? Foster and Kennedy hold that the good-faith exception applies to pre-McNeely searches. Tullberg addresses the second question.

State v. Kearney W. Hemp, 2014 WI 129, 12/18/14, reversing a published court of appeals decision; opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity

At last, a unanimous SCOW decision settles how §973.015 is really supposed to work. Upon a young person’s successful completion of a sentence or probation, the detaining or probationary authority must issue a certificate of discharge to the court. This alerts the clerk to expunge the record. No petition is necessary. And once a court grants expungement, and the young person performs as required, the court cannot reverse its decision.

Three Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson, Nos. 2013AP2504-2508-W; case activity (for 2013AP2504); Two Unnamed Petitioners v. Peterson, No. 2014AP296-OA; case activity; and Schmitz v. Peterson, Nos. 2014AP417-421-W; case activity (for 2014AP417)

The supreme court has granted review in some of the John Doe investigations into coordination of spending by candidate campaigns and independent groups. The long and varied list of issues presented (below the jump) is taken directly from the court’s order, which also includes directions regarding the briefing schedule, word limits, filings under seal, redaction and confidentiality of documents in the record in compliance with any secrecy orders. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justice Prosser concur in the grants, but write separately (pp. 7-12) to raise various legal and practical questions. Justice Bradley is not participating for reasons given in a letter appended to the order (pp. 15-18).