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
Involuntary intoxication defense to OWI rejected
Village of Menomonee Falls v. Kristina L. Smithers, 2018AP993, District 2, 2/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court properly rejected Smithers’s invocation of an involuntary intoxication defense in her prosecution for operating while under the influence of the prescription medication she was taken as prescribed.
No record, no record citations, no legal argument, no chance on appeal
State v. Tracy E. McCarthy, 2018AP484, District 2, 2/6/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs) McCarthy’s pro se appeal in his disorderly conduct case fails on multiple grounds. His brief doesn’t cite to the record and the record doesn’t include any transcripts. He doesn’t develop any legal arguments in support of his claims […]
January 2019 publication list
On January 31, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions: State v. Autumn Marie Love Lopez & Amy J. Rodriquez, 2019 WI App 2 (retail theft charges can be aggregated under § 971.36) State v. Alexander M. Schultz, 2019 WI App 3 (addressing double jeopardy challenges to […]
Probable cause to arrest for OWI found
State v. Michael R. Pace, 2018AP1428, District 2, 1/30/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The officer who arrested Pace for OWI had probable cause to do so.
Challenges to search warrant rejected
State v. Andrew Anton Sabo, 2017AP2289-CR, District 1, 1/29/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Sabo challenges the search warrant that led to the seizure of evidence from his home, arguing that the affidavit in support of the warrant didn’t establish probable cause, that he is entitled to a Franks-Mann hearing because the affidavit contained false information, and that the identity of the citizen informant who was the source of much of the information in the affidavit should be disclosed because there are reasons to doubt the informant’s reliability and credibility. The court of appeals disagrees.
TPR supported by sufficient evidence
State v. S.M.T., 2018AP2113, 2018AP2114, & 2018AP2115, District 1, 1/29/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects S.M.T.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence terminating her parental rights based on the children’s continuing need of protective services and S.M.T.’s failure to assume parental responsibility.
No prejudice caused by counsel’s failure to object to admission father’s criminal record at TPR trial
State v. L.V., 2018AP1065, 1/29/19, District 1 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
The defense moved to exclude evidence of L.V.’s criminal record prior to his daughter’s birth. The State told the court it had no intention of introducing his criminal record at trial. But when L.V. took the stand, guess who started asking about his criminal record?
Double jeopardy no bar to retrial after mistrial caused by State’s delay in disclosing 2nd photo array
State v. Mickey L. Miller, 2017AP2323-CR, 1/29/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Midway through Miller’s trial, the State discovered that two photo arrays had been conducted when both parties thought there had been just one. The State did not immediately disclose this fact. It waited until after the victim testified. The defense obtained a mistrial. The court of appeals holds that double jeopardy did not bar the State from trying Miller again.
A bad lineup is worth a thousand words….
….telling an eyewitness which suspect to pick. The New York Times offers a glimpse (complete with photos) of some of the ways lineups, past and recent present, have been unfairly suggestive, here.
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.