Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

We reported recently that the court of appeals has asked the supreme court to review a case challenging the ballot question that led to the adoption of Marsy’s Law in Wisconsin. As reported here, on the same day the court of appeals issued its certification, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the adoption of Marsy’s Law into the Pennsylvania Constitution based on similar challenges being made in the pending Wisconsin case. The Pennsylvania decision is available at this link.

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

A new order from the 7th Circuit provides that oral arguments scheduled through January 31st will be argued telephonically or by video. Counsel also has the option of waiving oral argument. Will SCOW follow suit?

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. T.A., 2020AP1350, 12/28/21, District 3 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

Tanner (16) had sex with a girl (16) after she told him to “stop.” The circuit court adjudicated him delinquent and imposed but stayed a requirement that he register as a sex offender. Subsequently, the court lifted the stay and ordered Tanner to register as a sex offender for 15 years.  The court of appeals here reverses the “lift of stay” and orders a new hearing because the circuit court relied on an inaccurate interpretation of Tanner’s J-SOAP-II score at the original hearing. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

December 2021 publication list

On December 27, 2021, the court of appeals ordered publication of the following criminal law related decisions: [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Nestor Luis Vega, 2021AP126-CR, District 4, 12/23/21 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Vega testified at his trial on drug delivery charges and denied he had sold drugs to the informant and that the informant was not telling the truth. (¶12). On cross examination, the prosecutor, over defense counsel’s objections, asked Vega why he failed to give police his exculpatory version of events when he was arrested. (¶¶13-15). These questions violated Vega’s due process rights under State v. Brecht, 143 Wis. 2d 297, 421 N.W.2d 96 (19880, and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), and the trial court’s error in allowing the questions was not harmless. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

State v. Randy J. Promer, 2020AP1715-CR, 12/21/21, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).

Last term, SCOTUS rejected the idea that “community caretaking” is a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. See Caniglia v. Strom, 141 S. Ct. 1596 (2021). Concurring opinions raised the possibility that the doctrine either no longer exists or applies only to the search of impounded vehicles.  See our post. The court of appeals holds that the community caretaker doctrine continues to apply to traffic stops,  and it justified the search and seizure in this case. [continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Waupaca County v. G.T.H., 2021AP1490, 12/23/21, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity

At Waupaca County’s request, the circuit court entered recommitment and medication orders against G.T.H. Six months later, the County conceded that the circuit court had failed to make the factual findings required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, ¶¶3, 40, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals reversed both orders but did not order remand proceedings. The County had failed to address the proper remedy and thus conceded that reversal was appropriate.

 

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }

Wisconsin Justice Initiative v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, 2020AP2003, certification issued 12/21/21; case activity (including briefs)

Question certified (composed by On Point):

Was the single ballot question submitting the “Marsy’s Law” constitutional amendments to voters legally insufficient because it:

(1) does not “reasonably, intelligently, and fairly comprise or have reference to every essential of the amendment,” State ex rel. Ekern v. Zimmerman, 187 Wis. 180, 201, 204 N.W. 803 (1925);

(2) is misleading, in that it contained “misinformation” and did not “mention[] [its subject] in accord with the fact,” State ex rel. Thomson v. Zimmerman, 264 Wis. 644, 660, 60 N.W.2d 416 (1953); or

(3) should have been submitted as more than one ballot question because the proposed amendment encompassed more than one subject matter and accomplished more than one purpose, McConkey v. Van Hollen, 2010 WI 57, ¶¶25-26, 41, 326 Wis. 2d 1, 783 N.W.2d 855.

[continue reading…]

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments }