On Point

State v. Micah J. Snyder, 2013AP299-CR, 10/2/14, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Based on County of Grant v. Vogt, decided just 2 months ago, the court of appeals reversed the circuit court’s decision to grant Snyder’s suppression motion in this OWI case. The court of appeals held that Snyder was not “seized” when a trooper parked his squad car face-to-face with Snyder’s car, approached Snyder on foot while carrying a flashlight, and then questioned him through a car window.

Portage County DHHS v. Shannon M., 2014AP1259-1260, 10/2/14, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

A jury found grounds–abandonment and continuing CHIPS–to terminate Shannon’s parental rights to her  children.  But the circuit court became worried that the jury might have viewed Shannon’s conduct very differently if it had known that the court had improperly entered a dispositional order against her, so it granted Shannon JNOV and dismissed the petitions to terminate her rights.  The Department appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Jody A. Bolstad, 2014AP915-CR, 10/2/14, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Bolstad shot a deer decoy from the window of his friend’s pick-up truck while a DNR warden was watching.  Afterwards, while sitting in a DNR car, he confessed to the warden and signed a written statement. The State charged Bolstad with various game regulation violations, and he moved to suppress his statements because the warden failed to inform him of his Miranda rights. The court of appeals held that Bolstad was not “in custody,” so Miranda did not apply.

State v. Charles L. Chew, 2014 WI App 116; case activity

In its first decision addressing Wisconsin’s recently adopted “castle doctrine,” § 939.48(1m), the court of appeals holds Chew wasn’t entitled to a self-defense jury instruction under the statute because the men Chew shot at were not “in” his “dwelling.”

State v. Jeremiah R. Popp & Christopher A. Thomas, 2014 WI App 100; case activity: Popp; Thomas

The search warrant for the home shared by Popp and Thomas was invalid because the primary basis for the warrant was derived from observations made by police when they trespassed on the defendants’ property and peered into their windows.

State v. Anthony Herman Williams, 2014AP447-CR & 2014AP448-CR, District 1, 9/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity: 2014AP447-CR; 2014AP448-CR

Cell phone records that corroborate a claim Williams’s trial lawyer made at sentencing regarding contact between Williams and the victims don’t show that the sentencing court relied on inaccurate information because the records do little to corroborate the contact or support Williams’s version of events.

State v. Landris T. Jines, 2014AP132, District 1, 9/30/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity

The recantations of Bartee, the victim, and Griffin, another state’s witness, don’t satisfy the newly-discovered evidence test because they are not sufficiently corroborated. Nor is there a reasonable probability a different result would be reached in a new trial with the recantation evidence.

State v. Benjamin P. Lind, 2014AP749-CR, District 3, 9/30/14 (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Officer’s observation of an unfamiliar vehicle entering the driveway of a home of a local police officer at 1:36 a.m. did not provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of the vehicle.

Review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed from the State’s Petition for Review)

Did the police have probable cause to arrest Dean Blatterman for operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration, where police were aware Blatterman had three prior OWI convictions, and thus had a .02 PAC threshold?

Did the police have a legitimate community caretaker concern when they transported Blatterman ten miles from the site of the traffic stop to a hospital?

On review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed from the State’s Petition for Review)

In granting Kucharski a new trial on the issue of mental responsiblity under the miscarriage of justice prong of § 752.35, did the court of appeals substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on issues that are within the sole province of the finder of fact, so that the appellate court’s decision conflicts with this court’s decision in State v. Sarinske, 91 Wis. 2d 14, 280 N.W.2d 725 (1979)?

Should a defendant be entitled to a new trial on the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect under the miscarriage of justice prong of § 752.35 where the court of appeals does not find any error or unfairness in the defendant’s trial, but determines there is a substantial probability of a different result on retrial only by substitution its judgment for that of the fact-finder on issues that are the province of the fact-finder alone?