On Point

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)

State v.

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.

Weather forecasts, for one.

State v. Andrew Anton Sabo, 2017AP2289-CR, District 1, 1/29/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.

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.

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?

State v. Mickey L. Miller, 2017AP2323-CR, 1/29/19, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)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.

….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.

Following up on our post from earlier this week, here are some more links to sentencing issues of interest to Wisconsin practitioners.

State v. Nathan Alan Bise, 2017AP1662, District 4, 1/24/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Bise raises three challenges to the finding he improperly refused a breath test. The court of appeals rejects them all.