On Point

State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez & Amy J. Rodriguez, 2017AP913-CR & 2017AP914-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Does either Wis. Stat. § 971.36 or inherent prosecutorial charging discretion allow a prosecutor to charge a single felony count of retail theft for multiple separate acts of theft, each involving less than $500 in merchandise, committed over a span of time?

State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2017AP1416-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19;  affirmed 11/12/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Once a juvenile has been waived into adult court by one circuit court, must the juvenile always be subject to adult court jurisdiction in any other cases?

State v. Roy S. Anderson, 2017AP1104-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

What constitutes sufficient knowledge of an offender’s community supervision status where an officer wants to search him pursuant to 2013 Wisconsin Act 79?

Whether the officers in this case had reasonable suspicion to search Anderson pursuant to Act 79.

State v. Alexander M. Schultz, 2017AP1977-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues (derived from petition for review):

When determining whether two offenses charged in successive prosecutions are the same in fact for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, how does the court determine the scope of jeopardy when the charged timeframe is ambiguous?

When there is ambiguity in the timeframe of the charging document who bears the burden resulting from the ambiguity–the defendant or the State?

State v. Robert James Pope, Jr., 2017AP1720-CR, petition for review granted 4/9/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issues:

Where no transcripts of a jury trial occurring over 20 years ago are available in a direct appeal and appellate counsel is new to the case, does application of  State v. Perry’s requirement that appellant assert a “facially valid claim of error” that might be supported by a portion of a missing transcript deny the constitutional right to meaningful appellate review?

Whether a statement on transcript filed in an appeal binds an appellant in all future appeals in the same case?

Using specialized software scholars have analyzed the opinions of SCOTUS justices for some time. Now SCOWstats has applied the same “text mining” software to SCOW opinions. Which justice uses the most (or biggest) words? Who speaks with the most clout? Who is our most emotional justice (according to the software’s algorithm)? Click here to find […]

State v. Calvin Lee Brown, 2018AP766-CR, District 1, 4/9/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Brown challenged a search warrant that was executed at his home, arguing the police omitted information about J.R.R., an informant who was cited in the warrant application, and that the information provided reason to doubt J.R.R.’s credibility. The court of appeals rejects the challenge.

State v. Michael J. Scott, et al., 2019 WI App 22; case activity (including briefs)

Applying long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the court of appeals holds that the exclusionary rule can be used to defend against a civil forfeiture complaint filed by the state. But it also holds the state should have a shot at arguing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule also applies, despite the state’s failure to assert this claim in the circuit court.

Jackson County DHS v. R.H.H., Jr., 2018AP2440 to 208AP2443, District 4, 4/4/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

At the grounds phase R.H.H.’s termination of parental rights proceedings, the circuit court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of continuing denial of visitation under § 48.415(4). Not so fast, says the court of appeals.

State v. Timothy Edward Curtis, 2018AP920-CR, 4/2/19, District 3, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The State charged Curtis with a 2nd offense OWI. He moved to suppress evidence obtained after his arrest on the grounds that the officer didn’t have probable cause for the arrest in the first place. He lost in the circuit court and in the court of appeals.