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.
SCOW alters test for whether state “suppressed” evidence under Brady v. Maryland
State v. Gary Lee Wayerski, 2019 WI 11, affirming and modifying an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court overrules Wisconsin’s longstanding test for deciding whether the state has “suppressed” favorable evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), saying the test is unsupported by and contrary to Brady and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions applying Brady.
Dismissal after suppression ruling was premature
County of Green v. Joey Jay Barnes, 2018AP1382, District 4, 2/7/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court dismissed charges against Barnes after suppressing some of the evidence against him. Not so fast, says the court of appeals.
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 about the alleged errors at trial. Moreover, there wasn’t a trial: he entered a plea to an ordinance violation.
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 successive prosecution when the charging language of the prior prosecution is ambiguous)
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?
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.