On June 29, 2022, the court of appeals issued its June 2022 publication order. No criminal law related cases were ordered published.
SCOWstats just published its first post in a multi-part series reviewing SCOW’s 2021-2022 term. The burst of June and July opinions confirmed a trend that emerged in May. This term, SCOW released an unprecedented number of 4-3 decisions with Hagedorn casting the decisive vote in 86% of them. And in 50% of those, he swung left. Who controls SCOW? For now, it appears to be Hagedorn.
State v. A.G., 2022AP652, 7/12/22, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); petitions for review granted, 10/11/22, reversed, 2023 WI 61; case activity
District 1 means business. Not long ago, it reversed an order denying A.G.’s claim that his no-contest plea to grounds for a TPR was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the circuit court neglected to explain the potential dispositions to him. It remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. There, the State simply presented a transcript showing that 10 months before the plea, the circuit court explained potential dispositions to A.G. The circuit court said the State met its burden. On appeal after remand, the court of appeals says no way! [continue reading…]
State v. Chrystul D. Kizer, 2022 WI 58, affirming a published court of appeals opinion, 2021 WI App 46, 7/6/22, case activity (including briefs)
There’s been a lot of press on this case, so we’ll skip the facts. Kizer is charged with 1st-degree intentional homicide and other felonies in connection with the death of a man she says trafficked her. She asserts §939.46(1), which provides “an affirmative defense for any offense committed as a direct result” of human or child sex trafficking. In a split decision, SCOW decided two questions of statutory interpretation. Now the circuit court must apply the clarified statute and decide whether Kizer gets a jury instruction on this defense at trial. [continue reading…]
State v. Westley D. Whitaker, 2020AP29-CR, 2022WI 54, 7/5/22, affirming a publisher court of appeals opinion, 2021 WI App 17; case activity (including briefs)
As a teenager, Whitaker repeatedly sexually assaulted his sisters. Though aware of the assaults, neither his parents nor the Amish elders reported them to the authorities. Whitaker pleaded to one count of 1st-degree sexual assault of a child. On appeal, he argues that the circuit court improperly sentenced him by referencing his Amish faith and stating an intent to send a message to the Amish community. SCOW affirmed, but the majority and concurrences highlight concerns about how “improper sentencing factor” claims are evaluated. [continue reading…]
State v. C.G., 2022 WI 60, 7/7/22, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2018AP2205; case activity
C.G. has the masculine legal name her parents gave her when she was born. When she was 15 years old she committed a sexual assault. At the time she was identifying as a male, but during and after the pendency of her juvenile case she began to transition to female. She wants to change her legal name to reflect her gender. But in Wisconsin, those on the registry are forbidden to change their names. C.G.–who is primarily identified by the pseudonym “Ella” in this confidential juvenile case–argued that forcing her to retain a masculine legal name violates her First Amendment right to free speech, and her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Four justices disagree. [continue reading…]
State v. A.T., 2022AP544, 6/28/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Guys, if you have unprotected sex, call or text your partner after. And “Wisconsin law does not require courts to consider race or culture when determining whether to terminate parental rights.” Opinion, ¶29. Those are the two main takeaways from this TPR opinion. [continue reading…]
State v. S.A., 2021AP1917-1919, 7/6/22, District 1, (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
The State petitioned to terminate Sarah’s parental rights to her three children because she had failed to assume parental responsibility and her kids were in continuing need of protective services. According to the State, Sarah had trouble controlling her anger and mental health. She left her kids home alone, and she and the children’s father had a history of domestic violence. [continue reading…]
