Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After the circuit court denied his motion to suppress certain statements he made during police questioning, Defendant pled guilty to second-degree reckless homicide as party to a crime. Defendant was fifteen years old at the time of the crime. Defendant requested that he be allowed to withdraw his plea, arguing that his confession to police was involuntary and, alternatively, that the incriminating statements he made that were not recorded during his custodial interrogation as a juvenile were inadmissible. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s statements were voluntary; and (2) the police violated Wis. Stat. 938.195 by turning off the device recording Defendant’s interrogation during questioning, but the error in not suppressing some of Defendant’s statements was harmless. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC), sixth offense. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to four years' imprisonment. The State appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred by excluding additional evidence that the State sought to submit to prove that Defendant possessed six, rather than five, prior drunk-driving related convictions. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of conviction, concluding that the circuit court erred in excluding the additional evidence and that the evidence was sufficient to prove the additional prior conviction. The remanded with instructions to enter an amended judgment of conviction for operating with a PAC as a seventh offense and to impose a sentence accordingly. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld Defendant’s conviction, holding that because a conviction of operating a PAC as a seventh offense carries a greater range of punishment than does a sixth offense, the court of appeals’ remedy rendered Defendant’s plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. Further, a remedy that requires a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea is violative of due process. View "State v. Chamblis" on Justia Law

After receiving a complaint from Defendant’s wife, police officers conducted an investigatory stop of Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant did not comply with police orders after being stopped and also complained of chest pain. The police transported Defendant to a hospital for medical assessment and then conducted a legal blood draw. Results of the blood test demonstrated that Defendant had operated his vehicle with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC). Defendant was subsequently charged with operating while intoxication (OWI) and with a PAC. The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the blood test results. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant’s transportation to the hospital exceeded the scope of the investigatory detention and violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant’s stop and detention satisfied the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment because they were supported by reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention; (2) Defendant’s arrest when he was transported to the hospital was constitutional because the officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant; and (3) the transportation to the hospital was lawful as a community caretaker function of law enforcement. View "State v. Blatterman" on Justia Law

Defendants in these two separate cases were found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in the blood, among other crimes. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the State did not violate Defendants’ due process rights when the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene had destroyed their blood samples in accordance with routine procedures before each defendant had the opportunity to test the samples. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in accordance with Arizona v. Youngblood, because Defendants’ blood samples were neither apparently exculpatory nor destroyed in bad faith, the State did not violate Defendants’ due process rights; and (2) operating a motor vehicle with a detective mount of a restricted controlled substance in the blood under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(am) is a strict liability offense that does not require scienter, and the statute is constitutional. View "State v. Luedtke" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense. Defendant appealed, arguing that his right of confrontation was violated when the circuit court admitted an expert witness’s testimony that established Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration while he was operating his vehicle. The expert witness based his opinion in part on forensic tests conducted by an analyst at the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, who was unavailable for trial. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court’s admission of the witness’s testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the witness’s review of Defendant’s laboratory file, including the forensic test results at issue in this case, to form an independent opinion to which he testified did not violate Defendant’s right of confrontation. View "State v. Griep" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of engaging in repeated acts of sexual assault of the same child and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. Defendant subsequently filed a post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The circuit court concluded that the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument were improper and ordered a new trial in the interest of justice. The court of appeals affirmed on other grounds, concluding that the amended complaint and information charging Defendant failed to provide adequate notice to satisfy Defendant’s due process rights and that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting other-acts evidence. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the circuit court with instructions that the judgment of conviction be reinstated, holding (1) the amended complaint and information provided adequate notice and, thus, did not violate Defendant’s due process rights; (2) the circuit court did not err in admitting the other-acts evidence; and (3) the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in granting a new trial in the interest of justice because of the prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument. View "State v. Hurley" on Justia Law

The State filed a criminal complaint alleging that Defendant had engaged in two counts of sexual assault of a child under thirteen years of age. Defendant move to dismiss the complaint and information on the grounds that he was not adequately informed of the charges against him because the time periods in which the alleged crimes were committed were too vague. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint and information. The court of appeals reversed, relying on State v. Fawcett as a basis for its determination that Defendant received adequate notice as to the charges against him. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded to the circuit court with instructions to reinstate the complaint and information against Defendant, holding (1) in child sexual assault cases, courts may apply the factors outlined in Fawcett and may consider any other relevant factors necessary to determine whether the complaint and information states an offense to which the defendant can plead and prepare a defense; and (2) the complaint and information in this case provided Defendant adequate notice of the charges against him. View "State v. Kempainen" on Justia Law

Based on evidence obtained from a search of Defendant’s home, the State charged Defendant with possession with several drug-related offenses. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from his home, contending that the warrant was unlawfully obtained because it was based on information gained from a prior illegal search. Specifically, Defendant contended that the police officers needed, but did not have, a warrant to conduct the dog sniff, and because the warrant relied on an affidavit detailing the dog’s alert to the presence of drugs, the warrant was invalid and the evidence must be suppressed. The circuit court denied the motion. While Defendant’s appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued Florida v. Jardines. Based on Jardines, the court of appeal determined that Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the officers brought the drug-sniffing dog to his home without a search warrant. The court nevertheless affirmed the conviction because the police subsequently obtained a search warrant upon which they relied in good faith. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the evidence at issue was obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate. View "State v. Scull" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with one count of first-degree intentional homicide. At trial, Defendant indicated that he wished to testify. Defendant insisted that he would inform the jury of allegedly wrongful prior conviction for armed robbery. The circuit court decided that Defendant’ proposed testimony concerning the prior conviction was irrelevant. Defendant, however, promised that, if permitted to testify, he would disobey the circuit court’s evidentiary ruling. The circuit court determined, over timely defense objection, that Defendant forfeited his right to testify at trial by exhibiting stubborn and defiant conduct that threatened both the fairness and reliability of the criminal trial process and the preservation of dignity, order and decorum in the courtroom. The jury subsequently convicted Defendant of first-degree intentional homicide. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant the right to testify, as the court’s forfeiture determination was not arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes it was designed to serve; and (2) even if the court assumed error, such error was subject to harmless error analysis, and in this case, the assumed error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Anthony" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to felony forgery. After Defendant was sentenced he filed a motion for resentencing, arguing that his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated because compelled, self-incriminating statements to his probation agent were appended to the report of the presentence investigation the circuit court reviewed at sentencing. The circuit court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed and granted resentencing based on ineffective assistance of counsel, which the court of appeals raised sua sponte. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) assuming, without deciding, that Defendant’s statements to his probation agent were compelled, Defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by actually relying on Defendant’s compelling, incriminating statements in imposing sentence; and (2) therefore, Defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s lack of objection to those statements. View "State v. Alexander" on Justia Law