Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)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?

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

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? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

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? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Sheboygan County v. M.W., 2021AP6, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity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? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Robert Daris Spencer, 2018AP942-CR, petition for review, and petition for cross review, of an unpublished court of appeals decision, both granted 8/13/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (composed by On Point from the PFR and cross PFR)

  1.  Was the circuit court’s ex parte voir dire and removal of a juror during trial a structural error requiring automatic reversal, or is it subject to harmless error analysis?
  2. Did the circuit court improperly consider the race of the defendant and the witnesses in deciding to dismiss juror?
  3. Is a defendant entitled to a postconviction hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when the record conclusively shows the claim should be denied?

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Daniel Doubek v. Joshua Kaul, 2020AP704, certification granted June 16, 2021; case activity (including briefs)

Issue (from Court of Appeals’ Certification):

Are Evans v. DOJ, 2014 WI App 31, 353 Wis. 2d 289, 844 N.W.2d 403, and Leonard v. State, 2015 WI App 57, 364 Wis. 2d 491, 868 N.W.2d 186, “good law” in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014)?

For complete information, see our post on the court of appeals’ certification.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Westley D. Whitaker, 2020AP29-CR, petition for review of a published decision of the court of appeals granted 6/16/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues Presented (from the PFR and supreme court order granting review)

  1. Does it violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, Section 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution to consider a defendant’s religious identity and impose a sentence intended to deter crime solely within his religious community?
  2. If a sentencing court may consider a defendant’s religious association to deter other members of a religious community, does the “reliable nexus” test of State v. Fuerst, 181 Wis. 2d 903, 512 N.W.2d 243 (Ct. App. 1994), and State v. J.E.B., 161 Wis. 2d 655, 469 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1991), require congruity between the offense and the activity protected by the First Amendment?
  3. Does the sentencing factor/objective of “protection of the public” permit the sentencing court to increase the sentence imposed on the defendant to send a message to an identified set of third parties that they should alter their behavior in the future, apart from generally being deterred from committing offenses like those committed by the defendant? (Added by the supreme court.)

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Christopher W. Yakich, 2019AP1832-CR & 2019AP1833-CR, petition for review of an unpublished decision of the court of appeals granted 6/16/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issue Presented (from the PFR):

When a defendant has been found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect in two separate cases and is subject to two separate commitment orders, does the circuit court have authority to run the terms of commitment consecutive to one another? [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }