On Point

State v. Viliunas, 2012AP2284-CR, District 2, 2/20/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

State’s destruction of video from police car’s dashboard camera did not violate OWI defendant’s due process rights. The defendant, who was found in the driver’s seat of a ditched car, claimed another person had been driving—although not until his jury trial, which occurred over a year after the incident, and after Viliunas had missed two earlier trial dates.

State v. Angie A., 2012AP2240, District 1, 2/20/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The state properly brought TPR petition alleging grounds under Wis. Stat. § 48.415(2) (continuing need of protection and services) and § 48.416(6) (failure to assume parental responsibility) instead of § 48.415(3) (continuing parental disability, a ground that specifically targets parents with a mental illness or developmental disability), because the state could and did make a reasonable effort to provide Angie A.

Pierce County v. Troy H., 2012AP2525 and 2012AP2526, District 3, 2/19/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court termination decision was the result of an erroneous exercise of discretion because the court failed to consider the statutory factors:

¶8        Troy asserts the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion because the record shows that the court did not consider any of the Wis.

State v. Brian A. Gottschalk, 2012AP2351, District III (not recommended for publication).  Case activity.

Wow!  Two decisions overruling the denial suppression motions in one day.  In this case, the State charged the defendant  with OWI and operating with a PAC, both as second offenses.  The defendant moved for suppression of evidence on the grounds that the officer seized him without reasonable suspicion. 

State v. La’Drea L., 2012AP1984 and State v. Ricky B., 2012AP2027, District 1, 2/20/13; consolidated court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity: LaDrea L.; Ricky B.

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it determined termination was in the children’s best interests because it considered all of the statutory factors under Wis. Stat. § 48.426(3). The circuit court “did not say the precise words” of,

Johnson v. Williams, USSC No. 11-465, 2/20/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing and remanding Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2011)

When a defendant convicted in state court raises a federal claim and a state court rules against the defendant in an opinion that addresses some issues but does not expressly address the federal claim in question, the federal habeas court must presume (subject to rebuttal) that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits:

….AEDPA sharply limits the circumstances in which a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner whose claim was “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.

Evans v. Michigan, USSC No. 11-1327, 2/20/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing People v. Evans, 491 Mich. 1, 810 N.W.2d 535 (2012)

A trial judge entered a directed verdict of acquittal in favor of Evans after concluding the state had not provided sufficient evidence of a particular element of the offense. A state appellate court later ruled that the unproven “element” was not actually an element at all and thus ordered a retrial.

Florida v. Harris, USSC No. 11-817, 2/19/13

United States Supreme Court decision, overruling Harris v. Florida, 71 So. 3d 756 (2011)

In a unanimous decision addressing the question of when a drug-sniffing dog’s alert constitutes probable cause, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s requirement that the state produce records of the dog’s reliability in the field in order to support probable cause.

Bailey v. United States, USSC No. 11-770, 2/19/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing and remanding United States v. Bailey, 652 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2011)

The Court holds it was not reasonable for police to seize an individual incident to the search of the individual’s residence when the individual was not in the “immediate vicinity” of the place being searched. The holding is an elaboration of the rule from Michigan v.

Question presented:

When a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, does the State violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant?

Lower court decision: Kansas v.