On Point

Christopher Roalson v. Jon Noble, No. 22-2833, 8/28/24

The Seventh Circuit affirms an order denying habeas relief, applying pre-Smith law on the confrontation clause, as the underlying WI COA decision dates back to 2014. The Court concludes that the rule the COA applied–“one expert cannot act as a mere conduit for the opinion of another” and must instead “render[] her own expert opinion”–did not contradict Melendez-Diaz or Bullcoming, the established precedent at the time.

State v. H.C., 2023AP1950, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/11/24; reversed 6/3/25; case activity (including briefs)

In a seemingly inevitable grant given a flood of appeals raising an identical issue, SCOW has accepted review of this unpublished TPR decision, which held–for the first time in Wisconsin law–that the preponderance of the evidence standard applies at the dispositional phase of a TPR.

State v. B.M., 2024AP414, District I, 9/10/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In a replay of last week’s decision in N.H., on which we posted here, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order denying B.M.’s motion to withdraw her no-contest plea to the grounds of the petition to terminate her parental rights.

State v. Jennifer Moustafa, 2022AP1315, 9/10/24, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms the circuit court’s denial of Moustafa’s motion to suppress evidence, concluding that consideration of the four Dunn factors do not support a determination that Moustafa’s patio is within the curtilage of her home.

Ozaukee County v. S.S., 2024AP759, District II, 9/11/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In determining whether to continue protective placement under Chapter 55, the County does not need to present an expert witness to establish an individual continues to meet the criteria for placement, and the circuit court may rely on the entire record – not just the record at the annual review hearing – to find grounds to continue placement.

State v. J.D.B., 2023AP715-CR, 9/10/24, District I (recommended for publication); petition for review granted, 2/12/25 case activity

In a recommended-for-publication decision, COA wholly endorses all of J.D.B.’s arguments requiring a high burden of proof when the State seeks an involuntary medication order in order to render a defendant competent to stand trial. Along the way, COA offers a bevy of helpful holdings that are also applicable outside of this highly-specialized practiced area.

State v. N.H., 2024AP597, District I, 9/4/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

B.W. forecloses N.H’s TPR appeal that his plea was involuntary because the circuit court misled him regarding the burden of proof at the dispositional phase.

E.S. v. K.R.K., 2024AP1174, District II, 8/28/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another chapter in the ongoing “burden of proof” saga in TPR world, COA swats away K.R.K.’s constitutional challenge while also holding that she is not entitled to a new dispositional hearing at which time an explicit burden of proof can be utilized.

July brought another bevy of interesting cases. As usual, we’ve tried to select those most relevant to our audience:

Brown County v. L.M.R., 2023AP2314, District III, 8/6/24 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects all of L.M.R.’s challenges raising commonly-litigated appellate issues and affirms in this Chapter 51 case given some less-than favorable facts.