On Point

State v. C.L.K., 2019 WI 14, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; 2/19/19; case activity (including briefs)

The State of Wisconsin petitioned the Milwaukee County Circuit Court to terminate C.L.K.’s parental rights, following which the matter went to trial in due course. After the State rested, the circuit court immediately  decided that Mr. K. was an unfit parent. That is, the circuit court decided the matter before giving Mr. K. an opportunity to present his case. The State concedes this was error, but says it is susceptible to a “harmless-error” review. It is not. We hold that denying a defendant the opportunity to present his case-in-chief is a structural error, the consequence of which is an automatic new trial. Opinion, ¶1.

Last June in Carpenter v. United States, SCOTUS held that phone users have a 4th Amendment right to historical cell site location records. Prof. Orin Kerr has a new paper out about how to implement Carpenter. Click here.  But why stop reading there? You can also read Prof.  Alan Rozenshtein’s new paper on 4th Amendment reasonableness after Carpenter here.

Guess whose paper is one of the top 10 downloads on the Social Science Research Network’s Criminal Procedure e-journal? Professor Keith Findley’s Feigned Consensus: Usurping the Law in Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Cases.  To be fair, Keith has many co-authors, but he is listed first!

State v. Pierre Deshawn Johnson, 2018AP595-CR, 2/12/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Johnson pled to operating a vehicle with a suspended license and injury by operating under the influence of a controlled substance. His lead issue–whether the victim’s failure to wear a seatbelt was a significant intervening factor that diminished his culpability and warranted a new sentence–failed based on State v. Turk, 154 Wis. 2d 294, 453 N.W.2d 163.

State v. Melodie Cheree Taylor, 2018AP1953-CR, 2/14/19, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In a misdemeanor prosecution under §946.49(1)(a) is the State required to prove that, before jumping bail, the defendant had been charged with a misdemeanor? Or may the State simply prove that the defendant had been released from custody under 969 after an arrest for a misdemeanor?

City of Cedarburg v. Ries B. Hansen, 2018AP1129, petition for bypass granted 2/12/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from petition for bypass):

City of Eau Claire v. Booth, 2016 WI 65, ¶1, 370 Wis. 2d 595, 882 N.W.2d 738 held that when a circuit court handles a 1st offense OWI that is mischarged due to an unknown prior offense, it is a defect in the circuit court’s competency but not the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, a defendant must timely object to the circuit court’s lack of competency or the objection is forfeited. Is the same true when the mischarged OWI is in municipal court?

State v. Stephan I. Roberson, 2017AP1894-CR, petition for review of per curiam opinion granted 2/12/19; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from the petition for review):

Whether a pretrial out-of-court identification using a single photo is a showup and thus inadmissible at trial unless the State proves necessity under the totality of the circumstances?

Not in Wisconsin. In California. But when we say sanctioned we mean SANCTIONED–to the tune of $50,000. No typos. The lawyer asked questions about the confidential report during a deposition. Click here for more on that. Loose lips sink ships . . . and bank accounts.

State v. James R. Mueller, 2018AP44-CR, 2/12/19, District 3 (1-judge opinion, eligible for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Mueller conceded that an officer had reasonable suspicion to stop him. He argued that the officer extended the stop based on a “hunch” and that his FSTs results did not provide probable cause for arrest or sufficient evidence to convict him because they test for impairment by alcohol, not prescription meds.

State v. Marco A. Lopez, Sr., 2018AP159-CR, 2/12/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

The State charged Lopez with child sexual assault of two victims and moved to admit the of testimony of two additional relatives who said that they were also assaulted by Lopez for years when they were the same ages as the victims. Lopez conceded the first two elements of the “other acts” evidence test. State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis. 2d 768, 576 N.W.2d 30 (1998),  §904.04(2) and §904.03. He argued that the trial court incorrectly weighed the probative value of the evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice.