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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
COA holds ch. 51 appeal not moot; rejects several evidentiary challenges
Marquette County v. T.W., 2020AP1908, 9/16/21, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.W. was living in a group home in 2019 when, per testimony at his commitment trial, he punched, choked and threatened various people while refusing to take his medications. He was committed. On appeal he challenges the circuit court’s admission of some evidence. The county responds that his challenge is moot.
Circumstances supported extension of stop to investigate whether driver had prohibited alcohol concentration
State v. Nicholas Reed Adell, 2021 WI App 72; case activity (including briefs)
Reversing a circuit court order suppressing evidence, the court of appeals holds the totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Adell was driving with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) and that police could extend the traffic stop to have Adell perform field sobriety tests (FSTs).
Subpoena for internet records was valid despite being served outside statutory deadline
State v. Todd DiMiceli, 2020AP1302-CR, District 4, 9/16/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under § 968.375(6), a court-ordered subpoena for electronic communication records must be served within 5 days of issuance. The subpoena used to obtain internet records regarding DiMiceli from Charter Communications wasn’t served till 9 days after issuance. The records obtained led to further investigation and charges that DiMiceli was in possession of child pornography. (¶¶2-7). The delay in service of the subpoena doesn’t entitle DiMiceli to suppression of the evidence obtained with the subpoena because the violation of the 5-day service rule was a technical irregularity or error that did not affect DiMiceli’s substantial rights.
SCOW takes another case to review when Machner hearings should be granted
State v. Theophilous Ruffin, 2019AP1046-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/17/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issue presented (from the State’s PFR)
Is Ruffin entitled to an evidentiary hearing based on his postconviction allegation that his trial counsel was deficient for not pursuing a theory of self-defense?
SCOW to address issues concerning sufficiency of evidence review
State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issues presented (from State’s petition for review)
1. How does a court consider the theory of guilt in an evidence sufficiency claim when an inconsistency exists between a jury instruction and verdict?
2. Must a court accept a jury’s resolution of any vagueness in testimony as jury credibility and weight determinations and must a court then adopt the reasonable inferences that a jury may have drawn from the evidence?
3. Has Coughlin, as the defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, met his heavy burden to overcome the great deference this Court gives to the jury and its verdict to satisfy that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State and the convictions, was insufficient to sustain the 15 guilty verdicts relating to his sexual assaults of John Doe 2 and John Doe 3?
SCOW will review scope of statutory affirmative defense for victims of human and child sex trafficking
State v. Chrystul D. Kizer, 2020AP192-CR, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)
Issue Presented (from the State’s PFR)
Does § 939.46(1m) provide a victim of trafficking with a complete defense to first degree intentional homicide?
SCOW will address whether refusal of blood draw can be used to enhance OWI penalties
State v. Scott William Forrett, 2019AP1850-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals granted 9/14/21; case activity (including links to briefs)
Issue presented
Wisconsin’s escalating OWI penalty scheme counts a person’s refusal to consent to a blood draw as a basis for enhancing the penalty for future offenses. Is that scheme unconstitutional because it penalizes a defendant’s exercise of the Fourth Amendment right to be free from an warrantless search?
SCOW will decide the remedy for circuit court’s failure to make specific dangerousness findings in ch. 51 cases
Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity
Issue Presented (composed by On Point)
What is the proper remedy when, in a ch. 51 recommitment proceeding, the circuit court fails to make specific factual findings with reference to the statutory basis for its determination of dangerousness as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277?
Another ch. 51 win due to failure to comply with D.J.W.
Outagamie County v. J.J.H., 2021AP244, District 3, 9/14/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Though J.J.H.’s primary challenge to the extension of his ch. 51 commitment is about the insufficiency of the evidence to prove dangerousness, the court of appeals (aided by the County’s concession) holds that the circuit court failed to make specific factual findings with reference to the statutory basis for its determination of dangerousness, as required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277.
2021 updates to the criminal jury instructions
The annual supplement to the criminal jury instructions has been published. It includes new instructions and updates to existing instructions. A list is here. The new and updated instructions, along with all the other instructions, are available at the Wisconsin State Law Library’s website.
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.