Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Defendant forfeited challenge to sex offender registration requirement
State v. Eric L. Nigl, 2014AP1876-CR, District 4, 4/30/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nigl challenged his conviction for a sex offender registry violation by attacking the validity of the juvenile delinquency disposition that required him to register. The court of appeals holds Nigl forfeited his challenge because he could have sought a waiver or stay of the registration requirement at the time of the delinquency adjudication.
Detention in squad car wasn’t unreasonable and didn’t convert stop into arrest
State v. Richard S. Foley, 2014AP2601-CR, District 4, 4/30/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Detaining Foley in a squad car during a traffic stop was reasonable under the circumstances and didn’t transform the stop into an arrest.
Evidence was sufficient to support ch. 51 medication order
Waushara County v. F.E.K., 2014AP2987, District 4, 4/30/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence was sufficient to show F.E.K. was not competent to refuse medication or treatment because he received an appropriate explanation of the alternatives to medication and treatment.
SCOW: State bears burden at postconviction competency hearings
State v. Roddee W. Daniel, 2015 WI 44, 4/29/15, affirming and modifying a published court of appeals decision; opinion by Justice Bradley; case activity (including briefs)
This opinion clarifies the procedure for determining the competency of a defendant during postconviction proceedings by holding that once the issue of a defendant’s competency has been raised, the state bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is competent to proceed.
SCOW: State constitution’s due process clause doesn’t provide greater protection against evidence destruction
State v. Michael R. Luedtke/State v. Jessica M. Weissinger, 2015 WI 42, 4/24/15, affirming two published decisions of the court of appeals: Luedtke; Weissinger; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity (including briefs): Luedtke; Weissinger
Brushing aside the argument that the Wisconsin Constitution’s due process clause provides greater protection to its citizens than the federal constituiton, the supreme court affirms the existing Wisconsin rule governing claims that the destruction of evidence by the state violates a defendant’s right to due process.
SCOW: Lack of scienter requirement in statute prohibiting driving with a detectable amount of a controlled substance doesn’t violate due process
State v. Michael R. Luedtke/State v. Jessica Weissinger, 2015 WI 42, 4/24/15, affirming a published court of appeals decision; opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court unanimously holds that § 346.63(1)(am), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in the blood, is a strict liability crime and does not violate due process by failing to require proof that the defendant knowingly ingested the controlled substance.
SCOW: Allowing a substitute expert to testify about forensic testing results doesn’t violate Confrontation Clause
State v. Michael R. Griep, 2015 WI 40, 4/23/15, affirming a published court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Roggensack; case activity (including briefs)
Opinion testimony by a qualified expert based on data produced by an unavailable forensic lab analyst doesn’t violate a defendant’s right to confrontation if the testifying expert formed an “independent” opinion based on a review of the unavailable analyst’s data.
County presented sufficient evidence to prove subject of ch. 51 commitment can be rehabilitated
Dane County v. Thomas F.W., 2014AP2469, District 4, 4/23/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
To extend a ch. 51 commitment, the County must prove the subject individual is a proper subject for treatment, which means showing he or she is “capable of rehabilitation,” §§ 51.01(17) and 51.20(1)(a)1. The court of appeals rejects Thomas’s argument that the evidence in this case shows treatment will only blunt the symptoms of his mental illness, not rehabilitate him.
Officers’ observations and information from other witnesses provided probable cause to arrest for OWI
State v. Zach Geyer, 2014AP2625-CR, District 4, 4/23/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under the totality of the circumstances, police had probable cause to arrest Geyer for OWI.
Driver’s failure to stop after hitting a deer didn’t justify traffic stop
Village of Chenequa v. Chad C. Schmalz, 2015AP94-FT, District 2, 4/22/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The stop of Schmalz’s car was not supported by reasonable suspicion or justified by the community caretaker doctrine.
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.