On Point

On February 26, 2020, the court of appeals ordered publication of three decisions; none of them are in a criminal law related case.

State v. Rosalee M. Tremaine, 2016AP1963-CR, 2/27/20, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication); case activity (including briefs)

An officer stopped Tremaine for a traffic violation and called another car to bring some warning forms. While the officer was filling them out, another officer arrived with a dog. The first officer handed Tremaine the forms, but did not allow her to leave. Then the third officer conducted a sniff, which led to a search of Tremaine’s purse revealing marijuana and a pipe. Defense counsel filed a suppression motion, but made the wrong argument. The court of appeals now finds him ineffective.

SCOW issued an important Chapter 51 decision today. In Waukesha County v. J.J.H, Appeal No.  2018AP168 a young, deaf woman argued that the circuit court denied her due process right to sign language interpreters for her Chapter 51 probable cause hearing. The court of appeals held the matter moot and said it was unlikely to recur even though it knew that this was the 2nd time in 3 days she had been denied interpreters for a court hearing.  According to the court of appeals, if J.J.H. wanted interpreters, then she should have waived her due process right to a hearing within 72 hours. J.J.H. petitioned for review, and SCOW took the case.

In the old days, SCOW issued fairly pithy, unanimous decisions. Not any more. SCOWstats’ most recent post compares the supreme courts of  Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Michigan and finds that SCOW issues far more separate opinions than the neighboring supreme courts do. Click here. Do these splintered opinions provide helpful guidance to the bench […]

State v. Lois M. Bertrand, 2019AP1240-CR, 2/26/20, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The 4th Amendment prohibits a warantless entry into the curtilage of a home unless it is supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. State v. Weber, 2016 WI 96, ¶19, 372 Wis. 2d 202, 887 N.W.2d 554. In this case, the officer lacked a warrant, probable cause and exigent circumstances when he seized Bertrand in the garage attached to her house. Thus, the circuit court should have granted the motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of her seizure.

The Legal Profession Blog reports on an ugly murder case out of New Jersey. Click here. A prosecutor tried to remove a Black prospective juror, F.G., for cause. When the judge ruled against the State, the prosecutor ran a records check on F.G., found a warrant and told the judge. The judge and the prosecutor […]

State v. Ryan C. Diehl, 2020 WI App 16; case activity (including briefs)

At Diehl’s trial for operating with a blood-alcohol content exceeding .02, the state asked the arresting officer and Diehl himself multiple questions that invited the jury to infer he had multiple OWI convictions. Because these questions were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to them, and Diehl is entitled to a new trial.

State v. Casey T. Wittmann, 2018AP1623-CR, District 3, 2/18/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Case law bars a sentencing judge from lengthening a defendant’s sentence to offset the amount of his or her presentence confinement credit. The sentencing judge in this case didn’t overstep that bar.

State v. Bartosz Mika, 2019AP1488, District 2, 2/19/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court appropriately exercised its discretion in continuing Mika’s refusal hearing so the state could call another witness, and the testimony of the additional witness established police had reasonable suspicion to stop Mika.

State v. Charles L. Neill, IV, 2020 WI 15, 2/14/20, reversing a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)

In this decision the supreme court explains how to calculate the minimum fine for an OWI when the fine is subject to multiple enhancer provisions. The supreme court’s calculation is better for defendants than the one arrived at by the court of appeals, though not the more favorable one advanced by Neill.