by admin
on August 22, 2017
State v. Denton Ricardo Ewers, 2016AP1671-CR, 8/22/2017, District 3 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
An employee at Family Dollar called the police to report that man who appeared “dazed and confused” and whose breath smelled of intoxicants had come into the store before leaving in a gold Ford Focus and heading west. An officer looked for the Focus but could not find it. Two hours later, the employee called back to say the same man, still “dazed and confused,” had once again been in the store, and once again had departed to the west in his gold Ford Focus. This time, the officer located the car and stopped it. The driver, Ewers, seemed intoxicated, which he eventually proved to be. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 17, 2017
Dodge County v. L.A.S., 2017AP302, District 4, 8/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
Under § 51.20(9)(a) the circuit court must appoint two licensed physicians or psychologists to examine and write reports on an individual subject to involuntary commitment proceedings. This requirement applies only to the initial commitment proceeding, not to the proceeding to extend a commitment. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 17, 2017
Monroe County DHS v. T.M., 2017AP875 & 2017AP876, District 4, 8/17/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
T.M.’s parental rights were terminated on abandonment grounds under § 48.415(1). (¶¶2-10). She argues this violated her substantive due process rights under Kenosha Cty. DHS v. Jodie W., 2006 WI 93, 293 Wis. 2d 530, 716 N.W.2d 845, because the period of alleged abandonment included time during which the County suspended her visitation rights based on her failure to satisfy conditions it was impossible for her to meet. (¶14). The court of appeals disagrees. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 16, 2017
Winnebago County v. C.S., 2016AP1955, 8/16/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity
C.S. argues that §51.61(1)(g) is unconstitutional because it allows the government to administer involuntary medication to a prisoner without a finding of dangerousness. The court of appeals elected not to decide the issue due to mootness, but that seems like a mistake. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 15, 2017
State v. Kavin K. Nesbit, 2017 WI App 58; case activity (including briefs)
Nesbit ran out of gas on I 94. He and his buddy were walking on the shoulder, red can in hand, to get gas when Deputy Fowles pulled up and told them he’d give them a ride to and from the gas station. But first, he asked them if they had any weapons. The friend said “no.” Nesbit who had been behaving normally “‘all of a sudden’ became ‘very deflated’ and shook his head slightly in the negative.”
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 15, 2017
State v. Derek Asunto, 2015AP50, 8/8/17, District 2 (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Derek Asunto and the state agreed to resolve several charges by dismissing some and having him plead to others. At the hearing where the deal was announced to the court, he entered a plea to one criminal count. The parties and court agreed the other counts would be held open until the sentencing hearing, but that at that hearing, Asunto would plead to an OWI-4th and the rest would be dismissed. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 14, 2017
State v. K.J. & State v. A.W., 2016AP1501/1502 and 2017AP720/721, District 1, 8/8/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity: 2016AP1501; 2016AP1502; 2017AP720; 2017AP721
The circuit court didn’t lose competency to terminate the parental rights of K.J. and A.W. after an initial TPR petition failed, nor did the doctrine of issue preclusion apply to the second TPR trial. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on August 14, 2017
State v. J.L.B., 2016AP2358, District 4, 8/3/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The circuit court erred in finding that a six-year-old child’s videotaped interview was admissible under § 908.08 because nothing in the interview showed the child understood the importance of telling the truth and that there are negative consequences to untruthfulness. See § 908.08(3)(c); State v. Jimmie R.R., 2000 WI App 5, ¶¶40-45, 232 Wis. 2d 138, 606 N.W.2d 196. (¶¶6-10). The error was harmless, of course: At trial the child testified in person (see § 908.08(5)(a)) and repeated her allegation that J.L.B. had touched her vaginal area, and another witness provided testimony lending credibility to the child’s testimony. (¶¶14-17).
{ }
