Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Refusal hearing argument didn’t clearly raise issue argued on appeal, so it’s forfeited
State v. Danny L. Waters, 2018AP1455, District 4, 5/2/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The argument Waters made at his refusal hearing wasn’t sufficiently clear to preserve the issue for appeal.
If 2 guys have sex with a woman who becomes pregnant, both better assume parental responsibility
E.M.K. v. Z.T.R., 2018AP1896, District 2, 5/1/19 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
That’s the upshot of this court of appeals decision. Before terminating a biological father’s parental rights, there must be a finding that he “failed to assume parental responsibility” under §48.415(6). But what if there is a dispute about whether he is actually the biological father of the child? The court of appeals holds that if only one other guy was having sex with the mother when she became pregnant then the unverified, biological father had “reason to believe” he was in fact the father and should assume parental responsibility for the child.
Court of appeals addresses its jurisdiction over order denying only part of a postconviction motion
State v. Sean R. Wolfe and State v. Donald Ray Ward, 2019 WI App 32; case activity here and here .
¶1 We hold that under established principles of finality, when a circuit court denies a RULE 809.30 postconviction motion in part and grants the motion in part such that further proceedings are required, an appeal cannot be taken until those further proceedings are completed. Because the judgments of conviction and the circuit court orders from which these appeals are taken do not dispose of the entire matter in litigation between the parties, we lack jurisdiction.
April 2019 publication list
On April 24, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following decisions: Winnebago County v. C.S., 2019 WI App 16 (involuntary medication of committed prisoners) Brown County Human Services v. B.P. & T.F., 2019 WI App 18 (requirements for pleading “abandonment” under § 48.415; summary judgment reversed)
Admission of other acts evidence and sufficiency of evidence for homicide conviction affirmed
State v. Alberto E. Rivera, 2018AP952-CR, 4/30, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).
The State charged Rivera with a homicide and an attempted homicide that occurred in 2015. Before trial, it moved to introduce “other acts” evidence–a homicide that Rivera committed in 1997. The trial court tentatively denied the motion. But then Rivera’s counsel made a “strategic” decision to offer the evidence as part of his defense. So, as you might guess, the appellate challenge regarding the admission of this evidence failed.
SCOW: Police asking driver about weapons is part of any traffic stop’s “mission”
State v. John Patrick Wright, 2019 WI 45, reversing an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court holds (again) that, as part of any routine traffic stop, police may ask a driver whether he or she is carrying a weapon.
Listen to the audio of the Mitchell v. Wisconsin!
The transcript of the oral argument in Mitchell v. Wisconsin doesn’t do Andy Hinkel’s argument justice. He stayed impressively cool under tough questioning. Hear for yourself here! If you prefer an eyewitness account of Andy’s argument, click here. His wife, Shelley Fite, a federal defender, blogged about it on the Appellate Section’s new blog.
ACLU files suit challenging Wisconsin’s refusal to release parole-eligible people who received life sentences as juveniles
Today the ACLU filed a 59-page class action complaint against Wisconsin parole commissioners in federal. It’s a “must read” for attorneys who defend juveniles. Among other things, it cites to a great deal of legal and scientific research on juvenile versus adult offenders. It also alleges that COMPAS assessments appear to treat youth as an “aggravating factor” and only a “miniscule number” of parole-eligible juvenile lifers have been paroled during the past 15 years. Most die in prison.
Driver’s silence constituted refusal; subpoenaed urine test results were admissible
State v. Gerald J. Vanderhoef, 2016AP2052-CR, District 1, 4/30/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Vanderhoef’s silence in response to the “Informing the Accused” form constituted a refusal to consent to a chemical test, so the subsequent blood draw was unlawful. However, the state subpoenaed the results of his urine test, and that evidence was admissible.
Court of appeals rejects jury pool and Batson challenges
State v. Michael Exhavier Dunn, 2018AP783-CR, 4/30/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).
The lead issues in this appeal are whether the jury pool for Dunn’s trial represented a fair cross section of the community and whether Dunn was denied equal protection when the DA struck 2 of the 3 African-Americans from the 30-person jury pool for his case.
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.