On Point

State v. Chonsea Jerome King, 2013AP1068-CR, District 4, 2/13/14; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

A police officer saw a car parked in a lot linked by “numerous [pieces of] intelligence” to illegal drug activity. It was 9:25 p.m. The officer watched it for about five minutes, but did not see anyone exit the vehicle or any activity outside the vehicle, though they did observe the interior lights in the car turn on and off “a couple [of] times.” (¶3).

Dane County DHS v. Nancy M., 2013AP1886 & 2013AP1887, District 4, 2/13/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1886; 2013AP1887

During the first day of a fact-finding hearing to the court to determine whether there were grounds to terminate Nancy’s parental rights, the trial court admitted evidence about Nancy’s bonding with her two children. Nancy objected, and the County and GAL agreed the line of questioning was not relevant to the grounds phase of the TPR proceeding,

Aaron W.M. v. Britany T.H., 2013AP2123, District 4, 2/13/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Britany claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to: 1) hearsay testimony from the child’s father that related incidents of Britany’s bad parenting;  and 2) the petitioner’s “golden rule” rule argument during closing, which asked the jurors to view the case as if the child were their own, thus improperly asking the jurors to “internalize and personalize the case,

State v. Lamont C., 2013AP1687, District 1, 2/11/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

¶14      We conclude under the facts in this case that [Officer] Hoffman did have reasonable suspicion … to stop … Lamont C. Hoffman, relying on information provided to him by a robbery victim, located Lamont C. within minutes of the robbery. In the limited time Hoffman was able to speak with the victim,

State v. Lawrence A. Levasseur, Jr., 2013AP2369-CR, District 4, 2/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The arresting officer used an implied consent form that pre-dated the 2009 amendments to § 343.305, so it omitted language about accidents involving death or serious injury–language that did not apply to Levasseur’s situation. The use of the outdated form didn’t strip the resulting blood test result of its statutory presumption of admissibility and accuracy,

City of Lancaster v. Todd A. Chojnowski & Eric T. Chojnowski, 2013AP1593 & 2013AP1594, District 4, 2/6/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2013AP1593; 2013AP1594

Arrest under § 968.075, the mandatory arrest law for domestic abuse offenses, doesn’t preclude a charge under city disorderly conduct statute. While § 968.085(8) prohibits the issuance of a “citation” to a person arrested under § 968.075,

Attorney Mark Gumz from the SPD’s Baraboo office has a good deal to say about State v. Hemp, the court of appeals’ latest expunction decision.  Read his comments here.

Eek! “Judge Fired for Sunbathing Nude in Her Chambers” here.

When imposing a sentence, Wisconsin courts may consider the defendant’s demeanor at trial and his remorse.  But a new study suggests that it is very difficult to evaluate remorse across cultural,

Wood County v. Linda S.D., 2013AP1380, 2/16/14, District 4 (1-judge, ineligible for publication), case activity

Do you know what an infinite loop is?  This decision is a good example of one.

Linda S.D. was subject to a Ch. 51 inpatient commitment order, and the County petitioned to extend it.  The test for extending a commitment order is set forth in § 51.20(1)(am).  The issue,

State v. Shymika S.W., 2013AP2415, District 1, 2/4/14  (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication), case activity

Issue:  Whether, in terminating Shymika S.W.’s parental rights to her daughter, the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by ignoring § 48.426(3)’s “adoptability factors?”  Those factors are found in § 48.426(3)(a) and (f), and they require consideration of the likelihood of the child’s adoption after termination and whether the child will be able to enter into a more stable and permanent family relationship as a result of termination,

Washington County v. Joseph Harvey Bingen, 2013AP1171, District 2, 2/5/14; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The trial court didn’t erroneously exercise its discretion by denying Bingen’s request for additional voir dire of prospective jurors for his first-offense OWI trial. In particular, Bingen was not able to ask if any jurors had been the victims of or convicted of drunk driving.