by admin
on October 26, 2017
State v. Christopher C. Bouchette, 2017AP820-CR, 10/26/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A Wood County officer spotted Bouchette driving “at a higher rate of speed” near the county border. He followed Bouchette for less than 5 minutes outside of his jurisdiction into Portage County and activated his siren. Bouchette did not pull over. He veered across the center line and drove into a ditch, which led to a search and a charge of driving with a PAC (2nd offense). Bouchette moved to suppress evidence that the officer obtained outside of his jurisdiction. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 22, 2017
Dane County DHS v. S.J., 2017AP1578-1580, 10/19/17, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication) case activity
When an opinion starts by saying a mother answered more than 80 questions relating to her understanding of pleading “no contest” during the grounds phase of a TPR case and quotes the her lawyer as saying “she’s one of the brightest clients I’ve ever worked with,” you know her motion to withdraw her plea is doomed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 20, 2017
State v. James Charleston, 2016AP2116-CR, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Charleston was in custody in Illinois and had pending Wisconsin charges. Twice he submitted to his Illinois jailers properly prepared requests for final disposition of those charges under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. The first request, in 2014, somehow didn’t make it to the Wisconsin authorities; the second in 2015 did and thus commenced the 180-day clock to try him or dismiss the case with prejudice. But, he wasn’t tried within 180 days, due in part to delays Charleston caused or agreed to. So, no dismissal. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 20, 2017
City of West Bend v. Rebecca L. Smith, 2016AP2170, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Smith appeals her jury-trial conviction for OWI. She argues that the court erroneously admitted, over hearsay objection, the computer aided dispatch activity report indicating the times that the police took various actions. She also seeks reversal based on the admission of expert testimony opining as to her BAC by the technique of retrograde extrapolation.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 18, 2017
Fond du Lac County v. Christy Ann Kasten, 2017AP343, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The only real issue in this case is whether the court, in this bench trial, had sufficient evidence to conclude that Kasten had driven within three hours of her blood draw at 10:52 p.m. The court of appeals holds that it did:
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 18, 2017
State v. Brad L. Conger, 2017AP860-CR, 10/18/17, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Brad Conger went on trial for an OWI and the associated PAC. His defense was an “alcohol curve” theory that the breath tests result did not reflect his true BAC at the time he was driving. His attorney moved to strike a juror who sat on another OWI/PAC case the preceding week–one featuring the same defense attorney, where the jury convicted on the PAC and apparently rejected the offered alcohol curve defense. The circuit court found the juror unbiased; the court of appeals now affirms. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 18, 2017
The other day we linked to an article discussing SCOTUS’s math allergies. Today we note some commentary about the Court’s need for fact checkers, discussing a detailed report titled “It’s a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren’t Hard to Find.”
{ }
by admin
on October 17, 2017
State v. Christopher John Kerr, 2016AP2455-CR, petition for bypass granted 10/17/17; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (based on the parties’ court of appeals briefs)
Does the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply when there is no misconduct by a law enforcement officer in arresting an individual on an active commitment order that is later found to be void ab initio?
[continue reading…]
{ }
