On Point

State v. Gerrod R. Bell, 2015AP2667-2668-CR, 12/1/16, District 4 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 3/13/2017, affirmed, 2018 WI 28; case activity (including briefs)

Bell was convicted of sexually assaulting two sisters aged 14 and 17. At trial, the DA told the jury that it couldn’t acquit unless it first concluded that the sisters were lying and unless Bell established a reason for them to lie. On appeal, Bell argued that the DA’s argument violated the principles that the State has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant is presumed innocent, and a defendant has the right not to testify at trial. Bell also asserted ineffective assistance based on his lawyers failure to redact exhibits provided to the jury.

Washington County v. Daniel L. Schmidt, 2016AP908, District 2, 11/30/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Schmidt makes a three-pronged attack on the revocation of his driving privileges for refusing a chemical test, arguing he was seized without reasonable suspicion, arrested without probable cause, and did not improperly refuse a test. The court of appeals rejects each claim.

State v. Connie Mae Apfel, 2016AP188-CR, District 3, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in admitting extrinsic evidence of the complaining witness’s statements to the police as prior inconsistent statements under §§ 908.01(4)(a)1. and 906.13(2)(a) after the witness expressed reluctance to testify and said he didn’t remember what he told police.

State v. Richard L. Weber, 11/29/16, 2016 WI 96, reversing a per curiam court of appeals decision, 2014AP304-CR; case activity (including briefs)

A deputy activates his emergency lights upon seeing a car with a defective brake lamp weave over a highway fog line. The car slows for 100 feet, turns right into a driveway, and pulls into a garage attached to a house.  The deputy apprehends the driver inside the garage.  Was there a 4th Amendment violation? 

State v. Brian Grandberry, 2016AP173-CR, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/13/17; affirmed 4/10/18; case activity (including briefs)

Grandberry was charged with carrying a concealed weapon after police stopped the car he was driving and found a loaded pistol in the glove compartment. Citing § 167.31, which regulates the transportation of firearms, he argues he was not “carrying” a concealed weapon but was instead “transporting” it under § 167.31(2)(b)(intro.) and 1., which allow handguns to be transported in a car, even when loaded. (¶6). The court of appeals says this argument misses its mark.

State v. Michael Lee Brayson, 2016AP896-CR, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Brayson’s girlfriend, L.A.R., is a long-haul trucker. When she goes out on the road he accompanies her and stays with her in the truck, though both maintained separate addresses in Mississippi. (¶¶3-6). Under these facts, Brayson’s convictions for battery of L.A.R. at a Wisconsin travel center were subject to the domestic abuse surcharges and modifiers under §§ 968.075(1)(a)(intro.) and 973.055(1)(a)2. because Brayson and L.A.R. “reside[d]” together in the truck.

Milwaukee County v. M.G.-H., 2016AP596, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The evidence presented at a hearing on whether to continue M.G.-H.’s protective placement was sufficient to show M.G.-H. “has a primary need for residential care and custody” and “is so totally incapable of providing for his or her own care or custody as to create a substantial risk of serious harm to himself or herself or others,” as required by § 55.08(1)(a) and (c).

State v. T.R.D., 2016AP1413, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

T.R.D. challenges the circuit court’s conclusions that she was an unfit parent and that it was in the best interests of her child for T.R.D.’s parental rights to be terminated. The court of appeals rejects the challenges.

Portage County DHHS v. D.B., 2016AP1233 & 1234, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

D.B. raises challenges to both the disposition and grounds phases of the hearing that resulted in the termination of her rights to her two children. The court of appeals rejects both.

Dane County DHS v. S.C., 2016AP1787, 11/17/16, District 4 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

S.C. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughter D.C. She pled to a continuing CHIPS ground; she challenges only the circuit court’s discretionary conclusion, at the dispositional phase, that termination was in D.C.’s best interest.