On Point blog, page 4 of 4
SCOW: Jury need not unanimously agree on the location of an alleged sexual assault
State v. Darryl J. Badzinski, 2014 WI 6, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity
Badzinski was charged with sexually assaulting his niece, A.R.B., during a family gathering at the home of his parents. (¶¶8-9). A.R.B. testified the assault occurred in a specific room–the basement laundry room. (¶11). But there was also testimony from multiple defense witnesses that it was not possible for the assault to have happened in the laundry room.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: When a defendant raises self-defense, evidence of a victim’s reputation for violence is admissible to show who was the first aggressor even if the defendant was unaware of that reputation
State v. Curtis L. Jackson, 2014 WI 4, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Ziegler; Justice Bradley concurs; Chief Justice Abrahamson dissents; case activity
In a decision that clarifies the rules regarding evidence of the victim’s character in cases involving self-defense, the supreme court holds that a defendant may present evidence about the victim’s reputation for violence even if the defendant was not aware of that reputation at the time of the offense.
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Discretionary authority to dismiss refusal charges is limited to cases in which defendant pleads guilty to underlying OWI
State v. Brandon H. Bentdahl, 2013 WI 106, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; opinion for a unanimous court by Justice Crooks; case activity
In State v. Brooks, 113 Wis. 2d 347, 348-49, 335 N.W.2d 354 (1983), the supreme court held that a circuit court has discretionary authority to dismiss a refusal charge under § 343.305 after the defendant has pleaded guilty to the underlying OWI.
SCOW: Six-person jury for involuntary mental commitment survives equal protection challenge
Milwaukee County v. Mary F.-R., 2012AP958, affirming an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity
Majority opinion by Justice Crooks; concurrence by Chief Justice Abrahamson; additional concurrence by Justice Ziegler (joined by Justices Roggensack and Gableman)
The issues in this case spring from State v. Post, 197 Wis. 2d 279, 318-319, 541 N.W.2d 115 (1995)(“persons committed under Chapters 51 and 980 are similarly situated for purposes of equal protection comparison) and State v.
Wisconsin Supreme Court finds review of Chapter 54 guardianship case was improvidently granted
Steve P. v. Maegan F., 2013 WI 89, dismissing review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; per curiam (Justice Prosser did not participate); case activity
This is every appellate lawyer’s nightmare–pouring your heart into an emotionally charged case presenting a provocative legal issue briefed by 5 different parties and amici and then having the supreme court declare that review was improvidently granted.
The record for this case is confidential so On Point’s explanation of what happened may be imprecise.