On Point

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

In this case the supreme court will address an important issue about the offense of using a computer to facilitate a child sex crime, § 948.075(1r). The court of appeals granted McKellips a new trial on a charge under that statute, holding the jury was erroneously instructed to decide whether McKellips’s cell phone constituted a “computerized communication system” when it should have been instructed to decide whether McKellips’s uses of the phone constituted communication via a “computerized communication system.” The supreme court might also address another issue that has implications beyond § 948.075: Namely, whether instructional error that isn’t objected to at trial can be a basis for a new trial in the interest of justice.

State v. Patrick K. Kozel, 2015AP656-CR, District 4, 11/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication), petition for review granted 3/7/16, reversed, 2017 WI 3; case activity (including briefs)

The results of a blood draw done by an EMT after Kozel was arrested for OWI were inadmissible because the State failed to prove that the blood draw was conducted by a “person acting under the direction of a physician,” as required by § 343.305(5)(b).

State v. N.J., 2015AP1477 & 2015AP1478, District 1, 11/12/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity

The order terminating N.J.’s parental rights based on her failure to assume parental responsibility under § 48.415(6) was not invalidated by any failures by the Milwaukee Child Welfare Bureau to make reasonable efforts to reunite N.J. with her two children.

Seifert v. Balink, 2015 WI App 59, petition for review granted 11/4/15; affirmed, 2017 WI 2; case activity (including briefs)

While this case involves a medical malpractice claim rather than an issue of criminal law, On Point thought it worth noting because it will be the first time the Wisconsin Supreme Court will address the admissibility of expert opinion evidence since § 907.02(1) was revamped to adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and, by extension, the interpretation of FRE 702 by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

State v. Jeffrey L. Elverman, 2015 WI App 91; case activity (including state’s brief)

The court rejects all challenges to a conviction of theft of more than $10,000. The issues mostly spring from the state’s use of Wis. Stat. § 971.36(4), which permits, under certain circumstances, the aggregation of multiple thefts into a single count.

Question presented:

Whether 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a) requires a sex offender who resides in a foreign country to update his registration in the jurisdiction where he formerly resided.

Seriously! The public is urged to send cards, gifts and flowers to their favorite lawyers and judges to show their appreciation for their good work. No lawyer bashing allowed today! Read all about it here. On Point can’t send you all flowers, but we do appreciate the challenging, noble work you do day in and day out. #whoneedspublicdefenders? We all do because, as Judge Brown notes (right), “the alternative would be disastrous!”

On review of a court of appeals certification; case activity

Issue (from certification)

Does a defendant’s right to due process prohibit a circuit court from relying on COMPAS assessments when imposing sentence, 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.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (composed by the order granting review)

Whether a sentencing court may rely on a defendant’s illegal immigrant status as a factor in fashioning a sentence; and if such reliance is improper, whether it is structural error or subject to harmless error analysis.

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity;  petition for review; response and cross petition; order granting review

Issues (from Singh’s petition and the State’s cross petition)

Whether the retroactive application of provisions of 2011 Wisconsin Act 38, which repealed provisions of 2009 Wisconsin Act 28 that gave inmates the opportunity to apply for early release, increases an offender’s penalty and therefore violates the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state constitutions.

If retroactive application of Act 38 in general violated the ex post facto clauses, did Act 38’s change in the procedure for granting release under one of the early release provisions (positive adjustment time, or PAT) violate the ex post facto clauses.