On Point

State v. Clinton D. Clucas, 2022AP965, 12/30/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

This is a pretrial state’s appeal under Wis. Stat. § 974.05(1)(d)2.. The trial court excluded three of the four prior incidents the state proposed to offer as evidence in Clucas’s trial for disorderly conduct with the domestic abuse enhancer. The court of appeals affirms, concluding the state’s proffered “permissible purpose” for the evidence is really just propensity by another name.

State v. Tisha Lee Love, 2022AP1422, 12/30/22, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Love appeals a jury verdict rendered against her for driving 87 miles per hour in a 55 zone.

State v. Thor S. Lancial, 2022AP146-CR, 1/5/22, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Lancial of 10 counts of possession of child pornography. On appeal, he argued that (1) the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that the police seized during their search of his cell phone. The court of appeals reversed on the second point and held that the pornography had to be excluded on remand.

County of Monroe v. Kling, 2022AP339, 12/30/22, District 4, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Section 346.70(1) governs a driver’s duty to report a car accident. When the accident does not cause injury or death, the driver must report the “total damage to property owned by any one person. . . to an apparent value of $1,000 or more” to the authorities by “the quickest means of communication.”  There are no published opinions interpreting and applying this language. This decision construes it against drivers and affirms the civil forfeiture entered against Kling.

State v. Steven W. Bowers, 2023 WI App 4; case activity (including briefs)

In this important decision addressing a novel Fourth Amendment issue, the court of appeals holds that Bowers had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his Dropbox account, despite the fact he (1) used his work email address to create the account and  (2) uploaded case files and shared them without permission. (Opinion, ¶43). The court further holds that although investigators had probable cause to search the account for evidence of Bowers’ alleged crime, no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search. (¶3).

The indispensable and indefatigable Doug Berman recently posted about an interesting sentencing-related petition for certiorari pending in the U.S. Supreme Court that might be considered at the January 6 conference. To quote from the amicus brief he helped prepare in support of the petition, the issue involves “the oft-recurring issue of whether the Constitution and federal sentencing law limits reliance on jury-rejected facts for dramatic Guidelines enhancements and impositions of lengthy prison terms.”

State v. Quaheem O. Moore, 2021AP938-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 12/21/22; reversed 2023 WI 50; case activity (including PFR, Response, and briefs)

Issues presented (from State’s PFR):

1. Did the court of appeals correctly read State v. Secrist, 224 Wis. 2d 201, 589 N.W.2d 387 (1999), to establish a standard of evidence for search and arrest based on the odor of a controlled substance that is more demanding than the constitutional standard of probable cause?

2. Did police have probable cause to search Moore incident to arrest under the totality of the circumstances, which included a “strong” odor of raw marijuana coming from the vehicle of which Moore was the sole occupant?

State v. Damon D. Taylor, 2021AP272-CR, District 4, 12/30/22 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Taylor moved to withdraw his Alford pleas to three crimes. The court of appeals agrees his plea to one of the three crimes was not knowing and intelligent because the circuit court failed to ascertain that he understood the elements of the offense.

There’s an interesting petition for writ of certiorari on this issue pending in SCOTUS. As this post from the Confrontation Blog explains: “The question is whether, or in what circumstances, the testimony of a prosecution witness at a preliminary hearing may be used at trial if the witness is then unavailable.  This is an issue on which the Supreme Court has not given any guidance since Crawford, and the petition ably shows that the lower courts are in clear dispute.”

Marathon County v. L.A.R., 2022AP1226-FT, 12/29/22, District 3 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity

“Laura” has suffered from bipolar disorder for over 30 years. At her initial commitment hearing, one examiner testified that she met the 2nd standard of dangerousness. Another testified that she also met the 4th standard. The circuit court held that Laura satisfied only the latter standard. The court of appeals affirmed.