by admin
on November 8, 2018
State v. Emily J. Mays, 2018AP571-CR, District 2, 11/7/2018 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court found the stop of Mays’s car was unlawful because the officer’s testimony and the squad car video showed that, during the time the officer was following Mays, her driving didn’t provide sufficient reasonable suspicion to believe Mays was intoxicated. The court of appeals reverses, holding that the 911 call that led the officer to follow Mays provided reasonable suspicion for the stop. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 6, 2018
State v. Akim A. Brown, 2017AP1332-CR, District 1, 11/6/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Brown, charged with second degree sexual assault of L.S., testified their sexual encounter was consensual. He argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to elicit from him certain testimony that would have helped show the encounter was consensual and for failing to object to testimony about L.S.’s prior consistent statements. The court of appeals concludes counsel’s shortcomings didn’t prejudice Brown’s defense. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 5, 2018
State v. Matthew C. Hinkle, 2018 WI App 67, petition for review granted 4/9/19; affirmed 11/12/19; case activity (including briefs)
Hinkle, a 16-year-old boy, was charged as a juvenile in two different counties for a car theft and police chase. In Milwaukee County, the juvenile court waived him into adult court. So, did the Fond du Lac court have to treat him as an adult too? [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on November 5, 2018
State v. Steven D. Palmersheim, 2018AP746, 10/31/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This is the state’s appeal of the circuit court’s grant of a suppression motion. A motorist called the police saying another car on the road was wildly swerving; the caller stayed with the swerving vehicle until it stopped on a residential street. When a police officer arrived in response to the car, the caller told him the driver, Palmersheim, had gotten out of the car and urinated in the street. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 31, 2018
State v. Deshawn Harold Jewell, 2017AP2503-CR, 10/30/18. District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Jewell claims that he is innocent of armed robbery, so his identity was an issue at trial. During deliberations, the jury asked the trial court for the “six pack” of pictures of people who appeared in the police photo array that the victim used to identify him. They also asked a question about how the photos were numbered. Jewell and his lawyer were not present and had no input into the answer. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 31, 2018
State v. Damien Farold Robinson, 2018AP259-CR, District 1, 10/30/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Robinson challenges some of the restitution ordered to reimburse two burglary victims for repairing the damage caused by Robinson’s forcible entry. The court rejects his arguments that there was insufficient evidence about the costs of repair and the reasonableness of the costs. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 25, 2018
State v. John P. Bougneit, 2018AP74, 10/24/18, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A jury convicted Bougneit of fourth-degree sexual assault; he allegedly nonconsensually fondled an 18-year-old woman under a blanket while he, the woman, and his wife were watching a movie together at their house. The wife testified for Bougneit and the state sought to damage her credibility by calling attention to her professed recall–in a statement to police and on the stand–of various seemingly minor details of the evening. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on October 23, 2018
State v. T.C.G., 2018AP464, 10/23/18, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
This TPR decision doesn’t seem right. The circuit court defaulted T.C.G. for failing to appear at the final pre-trial and trial regarding her fitness to parent J.M.H. It then moved immediately to the dispositional hearing without waiting 2 days as required by §48.23(2)(b)3. The court of appeals held that the 2-day requirement didn’t apply here. [continue reading…]
{ }
