It’s been a quiet week in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in terms of criminal law-related cases, so we thought we’d offer you some other things to read this weekend—and beyond! [continue reading…]
Justice Scalia’s death means several big cases (public unions, voting rights, immigration, etc.) could result in a deadlock. While there are no formal rules on point, the press reports that if a 4-4 split occurs, then either the court of appeals decision will be affirmed without comment or SCOTUS will set the case for re-argument next term–hopefully with Scalia’s replacement on board. Click here and here. SCOTUSblog offers a thoughtful look at past instances where cases were argued but not decided before a new justice joined the court. In these situations, SCOTUS’s practice is to order re-argument.
Justice Abrahamson made the same point in her dissent to State v. Matalonis, which was issued last week. Matalonis was a controversial decision that expanded the community caretaker doctrine to make it easier for police to conduct a warrantless search of a person’s home. Due to Justice Crooks’s death, the case resulted in a 3-3 split. SCOW did not simply affirm the court of appeals, which would have resulted in a defense win. Nor did it order re-argument. Instead, it permitted Justice Rebecca Bradley, who was still a court of appeals judge when SCOW held argument and initially voted on Matalonis, to break the tie in favor of the State.
Micah D. Stern v. Michael Meisner, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-2558, 2/9/16
Stern’s conviction for using a computer to facilitate a sex crime against a child under § 948.075 is constitutional because the Wisconsin appellate court’s conclusion that the statute allows conviction based on the defendant’s “reason to believe” the victim is a minor was neither unreasonable nor unforeseeable. [continue reading…]
State v. Robert A. Schoengarth, 2015AP1834-CR, 2/11/16, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered that police could not testify about Schoengarth’s performance on field sobriety tests. [continue reading…]
Rock County HSD v. D.B., 2015AP2420, District 4, 2/11/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects D.B.’s argument that the circuit court terminated her parental rights to T.J. without properly considering the facts that there was no adoptive resource available for T.J. at the time of termination, that a strong bond existed between T.J. and D.B. and T.J.’s older brother, and that T.J. had consistently expressed wishes to be returned to D.B.’s care. [continue reading…]
Review of a per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)
Issue (copied from the State’s petition for review):
No witness, expert or otherwise, may give an opinion at a trial that another mentally and physically competent witness is telling the truth. Here, the social worker who interviewed a child regarding her claim that she had been sexually assaulted testified that there was no indication that the child had been coached and no indication that the child was not being honest during the interview. Did the social worker’s testimony constitute a prohibited opinion that, during this interview, the child was telling the truth? [continue reading…]
Dennis A. Teague v. J. B. Van Hollen, 2016 WI App 20, petition for review granted 6/15/16, reversed, 2017 WI 56 ; case activity (including briefs)
Dennis A. Teague has no criminal record. But somebody who once used his name, and a date of birth similar to his, does. The ironic result is that Teague, a likely victim of identity theft, is now suggested to be a criminal by the Department of Justice’s criminal history database. Teague, understandably, objects, but the court of appeals concludes it has no power to fix the problem. [continue reading…]
State v. Rozerick E. Mattox, 2015AP158; District 2, 2/10/2016, certification granted 4/7/16, conviction affirmed, 2017 WI 9, ; case activity (including briefs)
Issue:
Does it violate a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the State to introduce at trial a toxicology report identifying certain drugs in a deceased victim’s system and/or testimony of a medical examiner basing his/her cause-of-death opinion in part on the information set forth in such a report, if the author of the report does not testify and is not otherwise made available for examination by the defendant?
