On Point

State v. Colton M., 2015 WI App 94; case activity

Colton challenges his delinquency adjudication for repeated acts of sexual contact with a child under the age of 16 under § 948.025(1)(e), arguing that applying the statute to him violates due process because it provides insufficient standards for distinguishing him from D., the victim, as both were 15 years old and both engaged in sexual activity. Colton also argues that prosecuting him rather than D. violates equal protection. The court concludes that, under the facts of this case, the statute is sufficiently definite to satisfy due process and there was a rational basis for prosecuting Colton instead of D.

Question presented:

Does a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualify as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” as defined under 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9)?

How often does On Point say “this is a must see”? Not too often. (Last time was John Oliver’s show on public defenders.) So trust us. You do not want to miss seeing how Bryan Wilson, Texas Law Hawk, markets his criminal defense practice. Click here!

And now for a super fun ethics quiz. Suppose you’re writing a brief challenging a lower court decision. Does calling the appellate panel “three blind mice”

N.A.H. v. J.R.D., 2015AP1726, 2015AP1727, and 2015AP1728, District 4, 10/29/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (first case number)

The petition to terminate J.R.D.s parental rights set forth sufficient facts to support the allegation that J.R.D. had failed to assume parental responsibility.

State v. Joseph William Netzer, 2015AP213, District 4, 10/29/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

¶1     …. Netzer argues on appeal that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial, and that the results of his blood tests were impermissibly admitted into evidence. We conclude that Netzer possessed no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil proceeding,

Seriously! Read about Harvard’s ambitious “free the law” project in this New York Times article. By 2017, all case law from around the nation will be free and searchable using (allegedly) more sophisticated techniques than those offered by Westlaw and Lexis (and dare we add flops like Fastcase). This massive effort entails scanning 40 million pages of case law! Why is Harvard doing it? To improve access to justice.

State v. One 2013 Toyota Corolla, 2015 WI App 84; case activity (including briefs)

While a co-owner’s interest in a car didn’t make her the owner for purposes of the “innocent owner” exception to property forfeiture under § 961.55(1)(d)2., forfeiture of her full financial interest violated the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against the levying of excessive fines.

Paysun Long v. Kim Butler, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-3327, 10/27/15

Long is entitled to habeas relief because the prosecutor in his state murder trial failed to correct perjured testimony given by a state’s witness.

State v. Joshua Allan Vitek, 2015AP421-CR, District 3, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Under State v. Newer, 2007 WI App 236, 306 Wis. 2d 193, 742 N.W.2d 923, police may reasonably assume the driver of a car is likely to be the owner, and may stop the car if they know the owner’s operating privileges are invalid. But what if more than one person owns the car, but only one of the owners has an invalid license? The state claims that a traffic stop is still justified by the fact that one of the owners has an invalid license. The court of appeals disagrees, at least when—as in this case—the state presents no evidence as to the number of registered owners and the validity of their operating privileges.

State v. K.G., 2015AP245, District 1, 10/27/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

K.G.’s stipulation to the failure-to-assume-parental-responsibility ground alleged in the TPR petition was valid even though K.G.’s later statements during the disposition hearing suggest he misunderstood what the state would have to prove to establish that ground for termination.