Winnebago County v. D.D.A., 2020AP1351, District 2, 12/23/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The court of appeals rejects D.D.A.’s challenges to the sufficiency of the petition to extend his ch. 51 commitment and to the evidence presented at the extension hearing. [continue reading…]
Calumet County v. J.M.K., 2020AP1183-FT, District 2, 12/23/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence proved J.M.K. (“Jane”) was not competent to refuse psychotropic medication. [continue reading…]
State v. Benjamin J. Klapps, 2021 WI App 5; case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court granted the state’s petition to revoke Klapps’s conditional release under § 971.17(3)(e), citing in particular the report of a prior examiner who didn’t testify at the revocation hearing and whose report wasn’t entered into evidence. (¶¶2-13). Klapps argued the trial judge had prejudged his case based on the previously filed report, and therefore his due process right to an impartial judge was violated. But Klapps didn’t object to the court’s use of the report at the revocation hearing and didn’t bring a postdisposition motion raising his bias claim; instead, he argued the right to an impartial judge is a structural error that can’t be forfeited. The court of appeals rejects this reasoning, holding a postdispistion motion was required under § 971.17(7m); thus, the bias claim is forfeited. (¶¶15-32). While the court of appeals can address the issue under its discretionary power to reverse in the interests of justice, it finds absolutely no basis for doing that here. (¶¶33-45).
State v. Jamie Lane Stephenson, 2020 WI 92, 12/18/20, affirming a published decision of the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
A five-justice majority of the supreme court holds that the state does not need to present expert opinion testimony that a person subject to commitment under Chapter 980 is dangerous to others because his mental disorder makes it more likely than not that he will engage in one or more future acts of sexual violence. [continue reading…]
State v. Frederick Jennings, 2019AP1539-CR, 12/22/20, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Three officers noticed Jennings either in or near the passenger side of a Toyota having dark tinted windows. They detained him, found marijuana and contraband in the car, arrested him, and found heroin in his pocket. Jennings moved to suppress arguing that officers lacked reasonable suspicion for the detention. Two officers testified at the suppression hearing. They contradicted each other and the body cam video, none of which supplied reasonable suspicion for the stop. While the circuit court denied suppression, the court of appeals reversed. [continue reading…]
In this Illinois case, the State charged the defendant with sexually abusing a teenager, R.L., who experienced PTSD as a result of the abuse. Citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, the State moved for permission to let R.L. testify with her service dog present because it feared she might experience a PTSD episode on the stand. Motion granted, and order affirmed. Apparently, other states have also concluded that the presence of a service dog does not create undue sympathy for a testifying victim.
State v. Chidiebele Praises Ozodi, 2019AP886-CR, District 2, 12/16/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The legislature amended § 939.42 in 2013 Wis. Act 307 to eliminate the defense of voluntary intoxication when the intoxication negated the existence of a requisite mental state, like intent or knowledge. But because the state has the burden of proving every element of an offense, including the mental state, there’s a due process argument that evidence of intoxication that might negate that element is relevant and admissible, despite the absence of a statutory defense of voluntary intoxication. (¶27 & n.4). If that’s so, then what, if anything, should the court tell the jury about how to use that evidence? [continue reading…]
State v. Jeffrey R. Lindahl, 2019AP997-CR, District 3, 12/15/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
In State v. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, the supreme court held that a collateral attack against a prior conviction used to enhance a penalty must be based on the denial of the right to counsel in the prior case. The court of appeals holds that “denial of the right to counsel” doesn’t include denial of the right to the effective assistance of counsel. [continue reading…]
