On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Chrystul D. Kizer, 2022 WI 58, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2021 WI App 46, 7/6/22, case activity (including briefs)

There’s been a lot of press on this case, so we’ll skip the facts. Kizer is charged with 1st-degree intentional homicide and other felonies in connection with the death of a man she says trafficked her. She asserts §939.46(1), which provides “an affirmative defense for any offense committed as a direct result” of human or child sex trafficking. In a split decision, SCOW decided two questions of statutory interpretation. Now the circuit court must apply the clarified statute and decide whether Kizer gets a jury instruction on this defense at trial.

State v. Westley D. Whitaker, 2020AP29-CR, 2022WI 54, 7/5/22, affirming a publisher court of appeals opinion, 2021 WI App 17; case activity (including briefs)

As a teenager, Whitaker repeatedly sexually assaulted his sisters. Though aware of the assaults, neither his parents nor the Amish elders reported them to the authorities. Whitaker pleaded to one count of 1st-degree sexual assault of a child. On appeal, he argues that the circuit court improperly sentenced him by referencing his Amish faith and stating an intent to send a message to the Amish community. SCOW affirmed, but the majority and concurrences highlight concerns about how “improper sentencing factor” claims are evaluated.

State v. C.G., 2022 WI 60, 7/7/22, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2018AP2205; case activity

C.G. has the masculine legal name her parents gave her when she was born. When she was 15 years old she committed a sexual assault. At the time she was identifying as a male, but during and after the pendency of her juvenile case she began to transition to female. She wants to change her legal name to reflect her gender. But in Wisconsin, those on the registry are forbidden to change their names. C.G.–who is primarily identified by the pseudonym “Ella” in this confidential juvenile case–argued that forcing her to retain a masculine legal name violates her First Amendment right to free speech, and her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Four justices disagree.

State v. Richard M. Arrington, 2022 WI 53, reversing a published court of appeals opinion, 2021 WI App 32, 7/1/22, case activity (including briefs)

In a majority opinion written by Roggensack, SCOW holds that the State did not violate Arrington’s 6th Amendment right to counsel by using a jailhouse snitch to help cinch a 1st-degree homicide conviction against him. Thus, Arrington’s lawyer did not perform deficiently by failing to file a suppression motion. Dallet wrote a concurrence joined by A.W. Bradley and Karofsky arguing that a 6th Amendment violation did occur and that Arrington’s lawyer performed deficiently by not moving to suppress the snitch evidence. The concurrence agrees, however, that Arrington was not prejudiced by counsel’s conduct.

State v. Avan Rondell Nimmer, 2022 WI 47, June 23, 2022, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

This decision ultimately involves only the application of well-settled 4th Amendment law to the particular facts of the case rather than development of the law. But it comes perilously close to something worse, for three justices embrace a modification of the quantum of evidence needed to justify an investigatory stop and accept uncritically the claims that the manufacturer of ShotSpotter acoustic sensors makes for the accuracy of its product and touts the device’s asserted accuracy in assessing reasonable suspicion in future cases.

Sauk County v. S.A.M., 2022 WI 46, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion, 2019AP1033; case activity

Unlike other states, Wisconsin appellate courts have for decades dismissed most appeals from expired ch. 51 orders as moot. As a result, there was been little appellate review of circuit court decisions declaring people mentally ill, committing them to government custody, and medicating them against their will. Not any more. In a 4-3 decision, SCOW holds that appeals from expired recommitment orders are not moot due to their collateral consequences. While S.A.M. won the war on mootness, he lost his due process and sufficiency of evidence claims. His recommitment was affirmed.

State v. Mitchell D. Green, 2021AP267-CR, petition for review of an unpublished COA opinion granted 6/22/22; reversed, 2023 WI 57 case activity (including briefs)

Question presented (from the State’s PFR):

Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion when it concluded that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial after Green introduced unnoticed third-party perpetrator evidence at trial via the testimony of a witness who claimed to have committed the crime but was unrepresented by counsel?

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, 2022 WI 43, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

How should an appellate court measure the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict where the instructions and the special verdict define the crime differently? In a 5-1 opinion, the majority held, based on the facts of this particular case, that the jury instructions should control. It then considered whether the evidence of child sexual assault was sufficient even though the State failed to prove that the charged conduct occurred during the charged time periods. The majority drew inferences in favor of the verdict and answered “yes.” Justice Dallett dissented on both points. Justice Karofsky did not participate.

State v. Ryan Hugh Mulhern, 2022 WI 42, 6/21/22, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision, 2019AP1565, case activity (including briefs)

When we posted on SCOW’s grant of review of the non-citable court of appeals decision in this case, we imagined the court might accept the state’s invitation to change the scope of the rape shield law and hold the evidence at issue here–testimony proffered by the state that a complaining witness had not engaged in sexual intercourse–admissible. Instead, the court repeats what it has said in prior cases: that such evidence falls within the rape-shield prohibition. But it says the erroneous introduction of the evidence was harmless in this case, so it reverses the court of appeals’ grant of a new trial.

State v. Valiant M. Green, 2022 WI 41, affirming a court of appeals summary disposition, 2019AP2150-CR, case activity (including briefs)

Does an affidavit supporting a warrant for a blood draw state probable cause where it alleges that the defendant “drove or operated a motor vehicle at driveway of [residential address]” and that the defendant “admitted to drinking alcohol at the house?” Writing for the majority, Justice Hagedorn answers “yes.”  Justice A. W. Bradley, the sole dissenter, says “no.”