State v. Joan L. Stetzer, 2023AP874-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision, granted 12/10/24; case activity
In an interesting case asking the justices to probe the competing interests at stake when a victim becomes a criminal defendant, SCOW will be given an opportunity to assess Wisconsin’s coercion defense under some very unique facts.
In a departure from SCOW’s usual practice, it has granted review of only 2 out of 3 issues in the petition filed by Stetzer:
1. Does Wis. Stat. § 939.46(1) permit a trial court to artificially and temporally subdivide a single “act” that is entitled to the privilege at its inception and determine whether each subdivided portion of the single “act” would be entitled to the privilege if viewed in isolation before the coercion defense will be applied?
3. Did the trial court fail to apply the correct legal standard by failing to consider the reasonableness of Joan’s decision not to stop and report her husband’s assault to the police from the perspective of a reasonable person with Joan’s particular characteristics and personal history?
As we outlined in our post on the decision from COA, Stetzer credibly claimed at her OWI trial that she was operating her car while fleeing from her husband’s abuse. However, the strict law of coercion did not entitle her to an acquittal, as it was undisputed that she did not stop driving once she drove past a police car. At that point, her operation of the motor vehicle was not the “only” means of escape; her continued operation thereafter was unlawful.
This case will be interesting to follow in SCOW, as Stetzer is not the “usual” criminal defendant. In a closely-divided court, all eyes will likely be on Justice Jill Karofsky, who has twice used her concurring opinions to discuss the significance of domestic violence and to decry a legal system which she believes does not take the problem seriously enough. Obviously, this petition was written with her in mind as the ideal reader. It will therefore be interesting to see how the State plans to parry Stetzer’s arguments without also contradicting its role as an advocate for victims.
