On Point: 2021-22 Term

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, 2022 WI 43, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)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

Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2022 WI 40, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity

The crisp majority opinion of this 50-page split decision confirms a narrow but important point of law for ch. 51 cases. When an appellate court reverses a commitment order that has expired, the circuit court lacks competency to conduct remand proceedings in the case. The majority opinion does not address whether, in all cases, an appellate court must reverse a “D.J.W. error” outright or whether it may instead conduct a harmless error analysis. The dissent does not fully grasp this point and thus presents a long, confusing attack on an imaginary majority opinion.

State v. Theophilous Ruffin, 2022 WI 34, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

This case doesn’t break new ground or develop existing law. Instead, it reverses the court of appeals for not applying the standard a circuit applies when deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction motion that alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Daniel Doubek v. Joshua Kaul, 2022 WI 31, 5/20/22, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

A person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as defined under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A), is barred from possessing a gun under federal law and, therefore, from getting a license to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin, § 175.60(3)(b). A unanimous supreme court holds that a violation of § 947.01(1) is not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

State v. Nhia Lee, 2019AP221-CR, petition dismissed as improvidently granted, 5/24/22; case activity (including briefs)

SCOW presumably took this case in order to address one or both of these issues: (1) whether a circuit court must appoint counsel at the county’s expense when the SPD is unable to do so within 10 days of the defendant’s initial appearance; and (2) whether Lee was denied the right to counsel, due process and a speedy trial as he sat in jail for over 100 days waiting for a lawyer. After briefing and oral argument, 5 justices voted to dismiss his petition as improvidently granted.

State v. Joseph G. Green, 2022 WI 30, 5/13/22, limiting in part and affirming in part, a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Section 971.14(5)(a)1 provides that a defendant’s commitment for treatment to competency cannot exceed 12 months or his maximum sentence, whichever is less. So the State argued that if a defendant appeals an involuntary medication order, this period must be tolled, otherwise the appeal time will consume the commitment period. SCOW unanimously rejects that argument. Unfortunately, a majority then “limits” State v. Scott‘s automatic stay of involuntary med orders to those entered during postconviction proceedings. In truth, SCOW eliminated the automatic stay.

State v. Teresa L. Clark, 2022 WI 21, 4/20/22, reversing the circuit court on bypass, case activity (including briefs)

A defendant may collaterally attack a prior OWI conviction if she was not represented by counsel and did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the right to counsel during that proceeding. Once she points to evidence of this claim, the burden shifts to State to prove a valid waiver. In a split opinion, SCOW now holds that if the transcript of the prior OWI hearing is unavailable, the burden doesn’t shift. The defendant must prove that her right to counsel was in fact violated–which is virtually impossible.

State v. Daniel J. Van Linn, 2022 WI 16, 3/24/22, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

After Van Linn refused to consent to a blood draw, police ordered one to be taken even though they didn’t have a warrant or exigent circumstances. After the circuit court suppressed the results of the test of this illegal blood draw, the state obtained the same evidence using a subpoena for Van Linn’s medical records. The supreme court holds that, under the “indepedent source” doctrine, the evidence obtained with the subpoena should not be suppressed even though the state sought the subpoena after the suppression of the same evidence obtained with the illegal blood draw.