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.

COA affirms third standard (2.c.) ch. 51 appeal due to abnormal neck movements and previous food restriction

Winnebago County v. J.D.M., 2024AP1601, 4/16/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirms the circuit court’s orders recommitting J.D.M. (referred to as “Josh”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication. A jury found Josh mentally ill, a proper subject for treatment, and dangerous to himself or others. Josh argues on appeal that the county did not present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was dangerous under § 51.20(1)(a)2.c., d., or e, and the court made insufficient findings to enter the involuntary medication order.

SCOW clarifies that law protecting employees from discrimination based on arrest records applies to non-criminal offenses

Oconomowoc School District v. Cota., 2025 WI 11, 4/10/25

In a case tangentially related to defense practice, SCOW clarifies that a Wisconsin statute prohibiting employment discrimination based on arrest records applies to non-criminal offenses, such as an allegation of theft prosecuted in municipal court.

March Publication Order

As usual, we bring you coverage of COA’s orders regarding publication.

SCOTUS grants cert to determine scope of defendant’s right to discuss matters with counsel during recess in trial testimony.

David Asa Villarreal v. Texas, USSC No. 24-557, certiorari granted 4/7/25

SCOTUS added to its 2025-26 docket this week when it granted the petitioner’s cert. petition to address the following:

Question presented:

Whether a trial court abridges the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess.

COA affirms suppression ruling based on illegible license plate

State v. Natalie S. Lozano, 2024AP1540-CR & 2024AP1541-CR, 4/9/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

In yet another appeal hinging on the requirement that a license plate be “legible,” COA affirms based on its deference to the circuit court’s factual findings.

COA affirms OWI 2nd conviction, holding police had reasonable suspicion to extend traffic stop

State v. Danny Thomas McClain, Jr., 2024AP8, 4/8/25 District I (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

COA affirms the circuit court’s order denying suppression of the evidence (field sobriety tests and preliminary breathalyzer tests), finding that police had reasonable suspicion to extend a traffic stop to investigate the defendant for additional criminal activity.

COA affirms CHIPS dispositional orders finding that circuit court exercised proper discretion in denying respondents’ petition to transfer jurisdiction to tribal court, authorizing County to exercise medical decision making, and admitting evidence of father’s risk assessment

Monroe County v. G.L.B., 2024AP1596, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

Monroe County v. T.B.2024AP1845, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA issued two decisions affirming the circuit court’s dispositional orders finding that T.B.’s (the mother) and G.L.B.’s (the father) son was in need of protection and services (CHIPS) and placing the child in out-of-home care.  The COA rejected the parents’ arguments that the circuit court erroneously denied their petition to transfer jurisdiction to Ho-Chunk Tribal Court and that the court erred in granting medical decision-making authority to the Monroe County Department of Human Services (the Department).  The COA also disagreed with the father’s argument that the circuit court erroneously admitted at trial evidence regarding risk assessments of his parenting skills.

COA affirms challenge to TPR disposition under erroneous exercise of discretion standard

Waukesha County v. A.T., 2025AP167, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

“Amber” appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her 6-year-old daughter, “Holly.” She argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion at disposition. COA affirms under the deferential, erroneous exercise of discretion standard.

Excessive water intake sufficient to find person “dangerous” under Chapter 51.

Winnebago County v. J.M., 2024AP1554, 4/2/25, District II (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA affirmed the circuit court’s order recommitting J.M. (referred to as “James Moore”) for twelve months and authorizing involuntarily administering medication.  The Court found that Moore suffers from schizoaffective disorder, which caused him to drink an excessive amount of water to the point that he needed to be transported to the emergency room for low sodium levels in his body.  The Court therefore found that Moore is a danger to himself, and that he is a proper subject for treatment because his condition is treatable with medication.

COA reverses grant of summary judgment in TPR, holds that issues of material fact exist as to abandonment and failure to assume

J.H. v. J.L.B., 2025AP85, 4/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA reviews the grant of summary judgment on abandonment and failure to assume parental rights de novo and concludes that there are issues of material fact as to each ground. The court therefore reverses and remands for a fact-finding hearing.

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.