State v. Samuel Martin Polhamus, 2019AP2339-CR, 1/28/21, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The State charged Polhamus with bail-jumping and disorderly conduct. A jury acquitted on the first charge and convicted on the second. Polhamus appealed pro se and, according to the court of appeals, appeared to argue that the State’s evidence of his alleged disorderly conduct both inside and outside of a bar was insufficient. [continue reading…]
Click here to read an interesting decision from the Tennessee Supreme Court. A lawyer who claimed that he was engaging in dark humor told a Facebook friend how to shoot someone and avoid conviction by making it look like self-defense. He was charged with ethics violations, and his license was suspended for 4 years. The Tennessee Supreme court held that lawyers are bound by ethics rules in any setting–including on social media.
State v. V.R., 2020AP798 & 2020799, 1/26/21, Distrct 1 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
This is an appeal from an order terminating V.R.’s parental rights. The court of appeals rejected a no-merit report because the record revealed that neither defense counsel nor the circuit court had discussed the meaning of a “substantial parental relationship” with V.R. before she pled no contest to failure to assume parental responsibility. On remand, V.R moved to withdraw her no contest plea and filed an affidavit. She lost her motion and now her appeal because she did not appear at the plea withdrawal hearing. [continue reading…]
On January 27, 2021, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions: [continue reading…]
State v. Mercado, 2021 WI 2, 1/20/21, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Mercado stood trial for sexual assault of three young girls. A video of each girl’s forensic interview was played for the jury pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 908.08. Mercado contends that none of the videos were properly admitted. The supreme court holds that he forfeited most of his challenges, and rejects those it considers. [continue reading…]
State v. Jalen F. Gillie, 2020AP372, 1/20/21, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An officer stopped Gillie’s car on a “dark night” because of “suspected illegal window tint.” An eventual search of the car turned up a gun and Gillie was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit. On appeal he renews his argument that there was no reasonable suspicion for the stop. The court of appeals agrees with him on this, and so reverses his conviction (and declines to address his other Fourth Amendment claims connected to the encounter). [continue reading…]
State v. James Lee Ballentine, 2019AP1597, 1/20/21, District 2 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Ballentine stood trial for three counts of delivering drugs. The charges arose from controlled buys; James was the informant and buyer. Ballentine’s defense was that James–seeking mitigation in his own drug charges–had framed Ballentine. Ballentine’s theory was that James had come into the alleged sales with the drugs already on him, and that he had concealed this fact by hiding them in such a way that the supervising police officers’ pat-downs would not find them. As part of this defense, Ballentine wished to adduce testimony that James had successfully concealed drugs from a police pat-down before, during an arrest; the drugs were eventually recovered after James ditched them in the police station. [continue reading…]
State v. Ryan Hugh Mulhern, 2019AP1565-CR, petition to review granted 1/20/21; reversed 6/21/22; case activity (including PFR and briefs)
Issue presented (from the state’s PFR)
Does § 972.11(2)(b), the “rape shield” statute, bar relevant evidence of the complainant’s lack of sexual conduct when the state offers the evidence to corroborate the complainant’s allegation of sexual assault and the evidence is not prejudicial to the complainant or the defendant and causes none of the harms the rape shield law is intended to protect against? [continue reading…]
