State v. C.W.P., 2022AP1240 & 2022AP1317, District 2, 12/14/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (2022AP1240; 2022AP1317)
The state filed two juvenile delinquency petitions regarding C.W.P. and petitioned for waiver of juvenile jurisdiction in both cases. The circuit court held joint waiver hearings after which it granted waiver. The court of appeals rejects C.W.P.’s challenges to the circuit court’s decision. [continue reading…]
State v. Donte Quintell McBride, 2021AP311-CR, 12/20/22, petition for review granted, 4/18/23, affirmed, 2023 WI 68;District 2; case activity (including briefs) District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs).
In a 2-1 decision, Judge Donald (joined by Judge White) holds that officers do not have reasonable suspicion to seize the passenger of an SUV just because he and the driver were sitting in the SUV with the lights off in an alley at night in a high crime area and the passenger moved when the officer shined a spotlight at him. Judge Dugan filed a lengthy dissent. [continue reading…]
State v. Eric J. Debrow, 2021AP1732-CR, petition for review of an unpublished COA opinion granted 12/15/22, reversed, 2023 WI 54; case activity (including PFR, Response, and COA briefs)
Issue presented (from the State’s petition):
Did the court of appeals apply the proper legal standard to its review of the circuit court’s decision to deny Debrow’s motion for a mistrial when it considered the adequacy of the curative instruction given by the circuit court and, if not, did the circuit court properly exercise its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial?
Adam Samia v. United States, USSC No 22-196 ; cert. granted 12/13/22; Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)
Question presented:
Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
State v. Nicholas A. Conger, 2022AP844, 12/14/22, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
A cop stopped Conger’s vehicle for a broken high-mounted stop lamp. On approaching the vehicle, the officer would testify, he smelled intoxicants. He asked Conger what he was smelling, to which Conger replied “Probably the pot.” Conger then turned over a small amount of cannabis and an open can of Mike’s Hard Lemonade to the officer. He also said he’d had some alcohol. The officer asked Conger to perform field sobriety tests; Conger agreed and was ultimately arrested for, charged with, and convicted of operating with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his blood. [continue reading…]
State v. Charles W. Richey, 2021AP142-CR, reversing an unpublished COA opinion; 12/9/22, case activity (including briefs)
“Freedom for all,” including the driver of the Harley in this case. In a quirky 4-3 decision, the liberal justices plus RGB hold that a deputy’s warning to be on the lookout for a Harley-Davidson driving erratically and speeding north on Alderson Street did not amount to reasonable suspicion for an officer stop a Harley driving normally about a 1/2 a mile away. [continue reading…]
Winnebago County v. C.L.S., 2022AP1155-FT, 12/14/22, District 2, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
C.L.S. sought reversal of his recommitment under §51.20(1)(a)2.e arguing that the county’s evidence of dangerousness was insufficient, and the circuit court failed to make the findings required by Langlade County v. D.J.W., 2020 WI 41, 391 Wis. 2d 231, 942 N.W.2d 277. The court of appeals rejected both arguments. But if its description of the examiner’s testimony is accurate, C.L.S. should have, at the very least, won on insufficient evidence. [continue reading…]
State v. Benjamin G. Churley, 2022AP189-CR, District 4, 12/8/22 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The 35-month delay in Churley’s case did not violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial. [continue reading…]
