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
Hiatus!
On Point needs some maintenance and updating, so we’re on a short hiatus [NOUN: a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process. ORIGIN: Mid 16th century (originally denoting a physical gap or opening): from Latin, literally ‘gaping,’ from hiare ‘gape’]. See you after Labor Day.
No error in finding defendant guilty of OWI
Village of Pleasant Prairie v. Brian Lucas, 2017AP2131, District 2, 8/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
This pro se defendant’s challenges to his OWI conviction go nowhere.
No error in handling testimony regarding non-appearing parent in TPR trial
Monroe County DHS v. J.N.D., 2018AP177, District 4, 8/23/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects J.N.D.’s argument that her TPR trial should be redone because the real controversy wasn’t fully tried.
No error in failing to strike allegedly biased juror at TPR trial
Sheboygan County DHHS v. K.N.L., 2017AP2413, District 2, 8/22/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
K.N.L. asserts a prospective juror (“Juror J.”) was biased and so the circuit court erred in declining to strike her for cause. Applying Wisconsin’s case law governing jury bias (summarized at ¶¶13-16), the court of appeals affirms the circuit court’s conclusion the juror wasn’t biased and, even if she was, the failure to strike her was harmless as she didn’t end up on the jury because K.N.L. peremptorily struck her.
GAL’s closing argument at TPR trial wasn’t prejudicial
State v. T.W., 2018AP967 & 2018AP968, District 1, 8/21/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
At the trial on the petition to terminate T.W.’s parental rights, the GAL argued in closing that the jury should consider the interests of the children. T.W.’s lawyer didn’t object, but the court of appeals holds that failure wasn’t prejudicial and so rejects T.W.’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective.
Circuit court’s expert testimony rulings upheld
State v. Natalie N. Murphy, 2017AP1559-CR, 8/16/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
To no avail, Murphy challenges the circuit court’s decision to exclude her expert’s testimony and its decision to allow certain testimony from the state’s expert.
No error in denying request to delay trial
State v. Ronnie Cecil Peebles, 2017AP2536-CR, District 4, 8/16/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court didn’t err in denying the adjournment request Peebles made on the morning of trial because he said he was feeling ill.
On the unhappy snares and traps awaiting unwary, unschooled, and unprosperous appellants
Lafayette County v. Ian D. Humphrey, 2016AP966, District 4, 8/16/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including respondent’s brief)
Humphrey wants appellate review of the forfeiture judgment entered against him for operating a vehicle while suspended. He doesn’t get it.
SCOW to address whether each structure listed in burglary statute is an “element”
United States v. Dennis Franklin & Shane Salm, 2018AP1346-CQ, certification granted 8/15/18; case activity The Seventh Circuit certified the following question of law to the Wisconsin Supreme Court: Whether the different location subsections of the Wisconsin burglary statute, Wis. Stat. § 943.10(1m)(a)–(f), identify alternative elements of burglary, one of which a jury must unanimously find beyond […]
SCOW to review personal jurisdiction and default judgments in Chapter 51 cases
Waukesha County v. S.L.L., 2017AP1468, petition for review of memorandum opinion granted 8/15/18; case activity
Issues (from court of appeals opinion):
Whether the circuit court has personal jurisdiction to recommit a person under Chapter 51 when the County concedes that it has been unable to serve her with the petition for recommitment?
Whether a circuit court has authority to enter a default judgment against the subject of a Chapter 51 petition for recommitment?
Whether “examining” physician reports recommending involuntary commitment and medication prepared physicians who never actually examined the subject are sufficient to support a Chapter 51 commitment?
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.