by admin
						
						
						on February 14, 2021
					
				 
				
State v. Alfonso C. Loayza, 2021 WI 11, 2/11/21, reversing a per curiam decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court unanimously holds that the state proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Loayza was convicted of OWI in California in 1990, making his current Wisconsin offense a eighth offense. [continue reading…]
				 
				
				{  }
			 
			
				
					
					
						by admin
						
						
						on February 14, 2021
					
				 
				
State v. Omar S. Coria-Granados, 2019AP1989-CR, District 4, 2/11/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In this child sexual assault the circuit court denied the state’s motions to admit other-acts evidence under § 904.04(2) and to allow the use of an audiovisual statement of a complainant under § 908.08. In a long (39 page) decision addressing the multiple legal questions and fact specific issues, the court of appeals reverses the circuit court’s other-acts order but affirms the denial of the motion to admit the audiovisual statement. [continue reading…]
				 
				
				{  }
			 
			
				
					
					
						by admin
						
						
						on February 11, 2021
					
				 
				
Waupaca County v. K.E.K., 2021 WI 9, 2/9/21, affirming an unpublished COA opinion, 2018AP1887; case activity
Waupaca County sought to extend Kate’s initial commitment for one year. The County’s examiner and witnesses agreed that she had not been dangerous during her initial commitment. She had taken her medication and was doing really well. She even agreed to take medication going forward, provided that it was not the one that had caused horrible side effects because it made her feel better. The circuit court recommitted her because the doctor opined that she would stop treatment in the future and become a proper subject of commitment. She challenged the constitutionality of §51.20(1)(am) on its face and as applied under the 14th Amendment. In a 5-2 decision, SCOW upheld the statute. [continue reading…]
				 
				
				{  }
			 
			
				
					
					
						by admin
						
						
						on February 10, 2021
					
				 
				
State v. Brian L. Halverson, 2021 WI 7, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2018AP858CR; case activity (including briefs)
Halverson was interrogated over the phone by a police officer while he was in jail on an unrelated matter. Wisconsin courts once treated incarceration as per se Miranda custody, believing that was the law SCOTUS had established. But Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012), held that it’s not. Halverson argued the Wisconsin Supreme Court should adopt the per se rule under our state’s Constitution, but SCOW now declines. It also holds that the particular circumstances here didn’t amount to custody in the absence of such a rule. [continue reading…]
				 
				
				{  }
			 
			
				
					
					
						by admin
						
						
						on February 8, 2021
					
				 
				
State v. Westley D. Whitaker, 2021 WI App 17, petition to review granted, 6/16/21, affirmed, 2022 WI 54; case activity (including briefs)
This appeal raises a hot-button issue likely to interest SCOW. Just last year an investigative journalist reported that Amish communities do not report sexual assaults of children to social workers or police. Parents and church elders strive to address the problem themselves. (NPR story). That’s what happened in Whitaker’s case. He repeatedly sexually assaulted his younger sisters then stopped when he was 14. His crimes went unreported until he was 25, well after he had left the Amish community. He pled to one count of 1st-degree child sexul assault and requested a “fines only” sentence. The circuit court found no risk that he would re-offend and no need for rehabilitation. Yet it imposed a prison sentence in order to “send a message” to the Amish community that this behavior is unacceptable and members need to report it. [continue reading…]
				 
				
				{  }
			 
			
				
					
					
						by admin
						
						
						on February 8, 2021
					
				 
				
State v. Gregory F. Atwater, 2021 WI App 16; case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court denied Atwater’s request to have trial counsel testify at a Machner hearing by telephone rather than in person, as trial counsel had moved out of state and returning to testify would be onerous and logistically difficult. The court then denied Atwater’s postconviction motion because he couldn’t get trial counsel to the hearing and couldn’t prevail without trial counsel’s testimony. The court of appeals holds the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by rejecting Atwater’s request for remote testimony by trial counsel.
 [continue reading…]
				 
				
				{  }
			 
			
				
					
					
						by admin
						
						
						on February 7, 2021
					
				 
				
State v. Kendell Marcel White, 2020AP588-CR, District 1, 2/2/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In the course of a traffic stop based on a bad parking job, excessively tinted windows, and no visible plates, police searched the car and found a concealed weapon. The court of appeals holds the search was unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. [continue reading…]
				 
				
				{  }
			 
			
				
					
					
						by admin
						
						
						on January 31, 2021
					
				 
				
State v. C.G., 2021 WI App 11; petition for review granted 4/27; case activity
Ella–a pseudonym–was adjudicated delinquent for a sexual assault committed when she was 15. Ella’s legal name is masculine in association; during her juvenile disposition she was transitioning to a female identity. In this appeal she challenges the circuit court’s refusal to stay sex offender registration under Cesar G., and also submits that the registry’s prohibition on changing her legal name violates her First Amendment right to express her identity. The court of appeals upholds the circuit court’s discretionary decision on the former claim; on the latter it offers three blithe paragraphs of discussion before casually announcing–in a decision that is set to be published, and thus binding–that requiring a transgender woman to use a man’s name implicates no First Amendment concerns whatsoever. [continue reading…]
				 
				
				{  }