On Point

SCOWstats recently posted a three-part analysis of the 2019-2020 term. The first post noted the plunge in SCOW’s output this year. It issued only 45 opinions. The record low is 43. Indeed, since 1971 the number of opinions is, à la a certain Bruce Springsteen refrain, going down, down, down down. Then there’s this shocker: Justice Hagedorn actually voted with Justices A.W. Bradley and Dallet more often than he did with R.G. Bradley! Will this trend continue now that Karofsky is in and Kelly is out?

Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2018AP1887, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 7/24/20; case activity

Issues presented:

1. Did the circuit court lose competency to conduct a recommitment hearing because the County did not file the evaluation of K.E.K. at least 21 days before the expiration of her commitment, as required by § 51.20(13)(g)2r.?
2. Is the recommitment standard in § 51.20(1)(am) facially unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment  because it violates the guarantees of substantive due process and equal protection of the law or abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens?
3. Is the recommitment standard in § 51.20(1)(am) unconstitutional as applied to K.E.K.?

  On Point is taking a short, well-deserved (or at least greatly needed) hiatus for some R & R during these dog days of summer. We know those dogs will be happy we have some more time to spend with them! See you in August.

State v. Jeffrey T. Ziegler, 2019AP858-CR & 2019AP859-CR, District 4, 7/23/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

To commit invasion of privacy in violation of § 942.08(2)(d), a person must, among other things, look into another’s dwelling “for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification….” § 942.08(2)(d)1. Contrary to Ziegler’s claim, the allegations in the complaints in his cases provided a sufficient factual basis for this element, and thus his guilty pleas stand.

State v. Rodney Timm, 2019AP1922, District 3, 7/21/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

If you handle ch. 980 cases you know that 2013 Wis. Act 84 changed the legal standard under § 980.09 for determining whether a person committed under ch. 980 is entitled to a discharge hearing. But you don’t know what the Act 84’s revisions to the standard mean—because no one knows, not even the supreme court. The court of appeals doesn’t decide what the standard means in this case, either, but it teases enough thread out of the tangle created by Act 84 to conclude Timm isn’t entitled to a discharge hearing.

State v. Bobby L. McNeil, 2019AP467-CR & 2019468-CR, District 1, 7/21/10 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

McNeil was convicted of drug offenses, obstructing, and bail jumping after a trial in two consolidated cases. His challenges to the joinder of the cases and to various evidentiary issues are rejected, but he prevails on the challenge to his sentence because the circuit court relied on inaccurate information at sentencing.

State v. Antonio L. Simmons, 2018AP591-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Twenty years ago Simmons was convicted of three counts of recklessly endangering safety for shooting into a car carrying three people, one of whom Simmons had been fighting with in a bar shortly before the shooting. The court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s denial of Simmons’s request under § 974.07 for DNA testing of physical evidence found in the car he was supposedly in at the time of the shooting.

In a case that may bear on the potential use of videoconferencing at criminal trials as the COVID-19 pandemic grinds on, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, in State v. Dennis Lee Seale, invalidated a trial court’s order allowing the prosecution’s out-of-state witnesses to testify using teleconferencing technology.

State v. Michael Thomas Martell, 2019AP927-CR, District 3, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer located and started following Martell’s SUV after getting dispatchers relayed a tip describing a vehicle driving erratically. What the officer saw provided reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.

State v. Joseph K. Edwards, 2019AP2138-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Edwards was charged with disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon for “creepy, stalker-like behavior.” (¶6). The court of appeals rejects his complaint that the jury wasn’t instructed on the definition of “true threat” under State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762.