On Point

State v. Richard Leo Mathewson, 2022AP2124-CR, 6/17/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

COA holds that prospective juror’s equivocal answers during voir dire regarding bias against defendant charged with sexual assault of a child is not sufficient to overcome presumption that juror is impartial.

State v. Jobert L. Molde, 2025 WI 21, 6/13/25, reversing COA’s authored, unpublished opinion; case activity

SCOW considers whether an expert witness violated Haseltine‘s anti-vouching rule when she testified that only around one percent of child sexual assault disclosures are false without offering an opinion on whether the victim in this case was telling the truth. A unanimous court overrules Mader and any other court of appeals case that holds statistical evidence alone violates the Haseltine rule.

State v. Nelson Holmes, 2024AP1121, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed Nelson Holmes’ conviction at trial of operating a vehicle under the influence and with a prohibited alcohol concentration, finding that a witness’s statements to a 911 operator were not testimonial and were admissible as present sense  impressions, and that Holmes was not subjected to custodial interrogation when he made incriminating statements to police.

State v. Peter Joseph Idell, 2024AP2230, District I, 6/17/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA holds that an odor of intoxicants and the driver’s 2009 conviction for OWI established reasonable suspicion to extend stop for expired license plates to investigate OWI.

Rivers v. Guerrero, USSC No. 23-1345, 6/12/2025; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

A unanimous SCOTUS held that a habeas petitioner’s second filing asserting a new claim for relief, submitted after the district court entered judgment with respect to the first filing but while the first filing was pending on appeal, qualifies as a “second or successive” petition and must be approved by the court of appeals before considered by the district court.

State v. Timothy J. Petrie, 2024AP2629-CR, 6/11/25, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Petrie argued the officer lacked probable cause to perform a preliminary breath test (PBT), therefore all evidenced gathered afterward must be suppressed. On appeal, he contends that the circuit court improperly applied the independent source doctrine because the state failed to present evidence at the suppression hearing and the court relied on the complaint. COA reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion.

City of West Bend v. Logan Patrick Lang, 2024AP2559, District II, 6/4/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying Lang’s suppression motion. Lang did not challenge the initial stop, but argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for field sobriety tests.

State v. Kordell Grady, 2025 WI 22, 6/13/25, affirming COA’s summary disposition order; case activity

Although SCOW presumably took this case to clarify the rules of Zoom court–and the oral argument focused intensely on such questions–SCOW ultimately opts to issue a decision which makes no substantive law and denies relief based on what it claims is a deferential review of the circuit court’s factual findings.

State v. Nicholas J. Nero, 2023AP543, District III, 6/10/25 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA found that law enforcement had probable cause that Nicholas Nero was driving under the influence, independent from his compelled statement to his probation officer and un-Mirandized statement to a deputy sheriff, and therefore affirmed the circuit court’s order denying his motion to suppress the results of his blood draw.  The COA also found that Nero’s claims for ineffective assistance of counsel at trial were conclusory and undeveloped.

State v. Derek J. Jarvi 2023AP2136-CR, 6/12/25, District IV (not recommended for publication); case activity

Despite the State’s efforts to overturn Jarvi’s postconviction win of a new trial, the court of appeals rejects the State’s evidentiary arguments and holds that it failed to prove harmless error in this case.