On Point

Little Chute Village Municipal Court v. Dennis M. Falkosky, 2015AP770, District 3, 9/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The trial court didn’t err by refusing to modify the standard OWI jury instruction, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2668, by taking out language giving blood alcohol test results prima facie effect as to the defendant’s BAC at the time of driving and replacing the language with the instruction addressing the blood alcohol curve, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 234.

County of Shawano v. Kory V. Amborziak, 2015AP462, 9/22/15, District 3 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

Ambroziak didn’t challenge an officer’s decision to stop his car for disorderly conduct. Instead, he contended that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to conduct field sobriety tests but he lost based on the facts found by the circuit court:

State v. Glen Artheus Beal, 2014AP2534-CR, 9/22/15, District 1 not recommended for publication); case activity

A jury convicted Beal of child abuse as a  party to a crime because multiple witnesses testified that he punched his girlfriend’s daughter and also restrained the daughter so that her mother (his girlfriend) could hit her. See §939.05(2)(a) and §939.45(5). Beal argued that although he was not entitled to assert the parental discipline privilege himself, he should have been able to present a defense based on his girlfriends’ right to assert that privilege.

“Digital Expungement Generator Cleans Records by the Thousands.” Wow! We need one of these in Wisconsin. While we’re on the subject of expungement, see “5 Things You Didn’t Know About Clearing Your Record” here by The Marshall Project. Did you see Stephen Colbert’s interview with Justice Stephen Breyer? Click here to watch it. For sure […]

State v. Eric L. Loomis, 2015AP157-CR, District 4, 9/17/15, certification granted 11/4/15, circuit court affirmed, 2016 WI 68; case activity (including briefs)

Issues

We certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court to decide whether the right to due process prohibits circuit courts from relying on COMPAS assessments when imposing sentence. More specifically, we certify whether this practice violates a defendant’s right to due process, either because the proprietary nature of COMPAS prevents defendants from challenging the COMPAS assessment’s scientific validity, or because COMPAS assessments take gender into account. Given the widespread use of COMPAS assessments, we believe that prompt supreme court review of the matter is needed.

SCOWstats.com examines the data. Click here for today’s post!

State v. Daniel Tawan Smith, 2015AP291-CR, District 4, 9/17/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Police had probable cause to arrest Smith, who was seen driving away from his home just as police arrived to execute a search warrant to look for evidence that he was selling marijuana.

State v. Shironski A. Hunter, 2014AP2521-CR, District 1, 9/15/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The trial court didn’t err in admitting statements witnesses made during a 911 call and to police at the scene of the crime because the statements were excited utterances. Moreover, the statements weren’t testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, so admitting them didn’t violate the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.

Did you see “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Public Defenders” on HBO? It’s compelling, and it will make you laugh and cry simultaneously. Click here to watch it. Can we hire this guy?!

Review of an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (copied from the State’s PFR here):

Crimes may be joined in one trial if they are similar or if they are connected as part of a common plan. Here, the court of appeals reversed Salinas’ conviction because it decided allegations that he sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s child, and that he intimidated his girlfriend and her child, were not similar acts or connected as part of a common plan. Is the court of appeals’ decision in conflict with the well-established rule that joinder of charges must be broadly construed?

Improper joinder is subject to harmless error review. Here, the evidence of sexual assault and victim intimidation was overhwleming. Did the court of appeals err in concluding that the joinder of the charges was not harmless?