On Point

State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2025 WI 34, 7/3/25, affirming an unpublished decision from COA; case activity

Faced with a unique fact pattern arising from an OWI prosecution, SCOW interprets Wisconsin’s coercion defense and finds that Stetzer is unable to prevail, regardless of the clearly sympathetic facts presented.

State v. Carl L. McAdory, 2025 WI 30, 7/1/25, case activity

A unanimous SCOW held that the circuit court had authority under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(c) to reinstate Carl McAdory’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in his blood, which was dismissed when he was also convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance that arose out of the same incident or occurrence, after the OWI conviction was vacated on appeal.  The Court also rejected McAdory’s claims that the State forfeited the right to seek reinstatement by not raising the issue on his appeal from his OWI conviction, that the circuit court did not comply with the COA’s mandate, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy.

The concurring opinion, written by Justice Ziegler and joined by Justice Bradley, would have overruled SCOW and COA precedents establishing that the circuit court must dismiss all but one of the convictions when a defendant is tried and found guilty of multiple offenses under § 346.63(1) that arise out of the same incident or occurrence.

Josh Kaul, et al., v. Joel Urmanski, et al., 2025 WI 32, 7/2/25, on bypass from COA; case activity

In a long-awaited decision, SCOW holds that a criminal statute forbidding abortion cannot be enforced under the doctrine of implied repeal.

Kelly R. Rose v. C.R.R., 2024AP1450, 7/2/25, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

In an interesting statutory construction appeal, COA holds that “a guardian’s determination that denying contact with a family member is in the ward’s best interest is not cause for court action against a guardian.”

State v. Samuel R. Osornio, 2024AP2368-CR, decision originally issued 6/25/25, subsequently withdrawn, reissued 7/18/25, District 4, (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Osornio argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the state charged him with both reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, based on allegations that he delivered heroin to A.B. and A.B. fatally overdosed on this heroin, and, separately, with delivery of the same heroin to A.B. (¶1). COA reverses, concluding that the two counts were multiplicitous, as Osornio was exposed to the potential for punishment twice for the same offense of delivering heroin to A.B. (¶3).

Michael Williams v. Michael Meisner, No. 23-3268, 6/16/25

In a case that likely signals the end of a long legal battle over a Wisconsin jury instruction telling jurors to “search for the truth,” the Seventh Circuit holds that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief.

Service Employees International Union Healthcare Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 2025 WI 29, 6/27/25, on bypass from the court of appeals; case activity

In a unanimous non-criminal appeal, four justices issue a concurrence signaling their willingness to revisit Wisconsin’s method of statutory construction as set forth in Kalal. 

State v. Luis A. Ramirez, 2025 WI 28, 6/27/25, reversing a published decision from COA; case activity

When this case was issued in COA, we got excited and informed our readers that this “big defense win” was an important decision on the speedy trial right. However, SCOW now unanimously reverses in favor of the State.

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication, this time for April, May and June.

State v. T.R.T., 2025AP387-CR, 6/19/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Although it acknowledges uncertainty as to the appropriate standard of review, COA ultimately affirms the circuit court’s order under a clearly erroneous standard.