by admin
on October 3, 2019
State v. Michael K. Lorentz, 2018AP1515, 10/1/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The state charged Lorentz with violating four injunctions. One count was brought under Wis. Stat. § 813.12(8)(a) (for violating a domestic abuse injunction regarding his ex-wife) and three under Wis. Stat. § 813.122(11) (for violating three child abuse injunctions–one for each of their three children). Each injunction required Lorentz to “avoid” the “residence” the mother and children shared. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 1, 2019
State v. Vaylan G. Morris, 2018AP1694-CR, Distrct 1, 10/1/19 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
O.M., an infant, died while c0-sleeping with Morris and her mom. Morris admitted that he may have rolled over onto her and pled guilty to 2nd degree recklessly endangering safety, party to a crime, At sentencing, the State said that O.M.’s cause of death could have been the synthetic marijuana that Morris had been smoking, even though the medical examiner attested that it wasn’t. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 1, 2019
State v. Orlando Davis, 2018AP2326-CR, 10/1/19, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligble for publication) case activity (including briefs)
Davis filed a Bangert motion alleging that (1) the trial court failed to advise him of the elements of the offense to which he pled guilty, and (2) he did not understand those elements. At the postconviction hearing, Davis and his trial lawyer testified about Davis’s understanding of the elements. The postconviction court found counsel more credible, and the court of appeals affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 29, 2019
Waupaca v. K.E.K., 2018Ap1887, District 4, 9/26/19 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 7/24/20, affirmed, 2021 WI 9; case activity
This opinion infuses uncertainty, if not confusion, into the law governing circuit court competency to decide a Chapter 51 recommitment case and the substantive legal standard that courts are to apply at the recommitment stage. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 29, 2019
On September 25, 2019, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:
State v. Daniel A. Griffin, 2019 WI App 49 (circuit court properly applied Denny and Sullivan tests to exclude evidence regarding third-party perpetrator)
State v. Malcolm J. Sanders, 2019 WI App 52 (prosecutor didn’t violate Batson by striking juror who had bad experience with police)
{ }
by admin
on September 27, 2019
Vernon County DHS v. K.F. and M.F., 2018AP863, 9/26/2019, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The county filed a CHIPS petition regarding K.F. and M.F.’s four children. The court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the kids and ordered the county to pay the GAL’s fees, but additionally ordered that the parents reimburse the county. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 25, 2019
State v. Garrett German, 2018AP78, 9/24/19, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Facebook alerted law enforcement that German’s account had uploaded images that “appeared to depict child pornography.” Eventually, an who had looked at the images submitted a warrant application averring that each one did “appear to be an image of child pornography.” Police executing the warrant did, in fact, find child pornography. Was the bare allegation that the images were child pornography (rather than an attachment with the actual images or at least a description of what they showed) good enough to supply probable cause to the warrant-issuing magistrate? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on September 25, 2019
State v. Jesse J. Jennerjohn, 2018AP1762, 9/24/19, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Just last week we had Kettlewell, where the court of appeals rejected the state’s claim that the officers who entered a suspected drunk driver’s home were performing a legitimate community-caretaker search because he might have been injured. Here, we have the police going into a home whose occupant they’ve already arrested outside; the court rejects as merely speculative the state’s argument that someone else might have needed assistance inside, or that firearms in the home might have posed a danger. We also get this gem: “The court did not explain why the fact that Jennerjohn was holding a piece of venison when he came out of his residence supported an objectively reasonable basis for the officers to believe it was necessary to search his residence in order to protect themselves or others.” (¶40). [continue reading…]
{ }
