Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed a conviction of first degree intentional homicide while using a dangerous weapon where the murdered man made statements to an ambulance driver and a police officer before he died that gave a brief description of the assailant ("Somerville statements"). At issue was whether the admission of the Sommerville statements and the prior statements of two recanting witnesses violated defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation and due process. The court affirmed the court of appeal's holding that the Somerville statements were properly admitted and did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses nor his corresponding right under the Wisconsin Constitution. The court also held that the failure to exclude prior inconsistent statements of recanting witnesses did not violate due process where the statements were admitted without objection and consistent with controlling Wisconsin law. The court further held that defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to urge the court to apply the law of another jurisdiction, nor can the circuit court be said to have committed plain error when it applied what was then the controlling law in Wisconsin.

Defendant contended that his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution was violated where he was arrested and charged with attempted second-degree sexual assault and false imprisonment. At issue was whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Montejo v. Louisiana required the court to overrule Wisconsin precedent that established the parameters of a charged defendant's right to counsel in Wisconsin when a defendant, who had affirmatively invoked his constitutional right to counsel by retaining and receiving the services of counsel on pending charges, was subjected to questioning by law enforcement. The court held that Montejo did not sanction the interrogation that occurred where defendant's right to counsel under the federal or state constitution had attached and was invoked affirmatively by him before the investigator's questioning was initiated. The court also held that the circuit court's finding that the investigator knew defendant had secured legal counsel for the pending charges was not clearly erroneous and that defendant was not required to "re-invoke" his right to counsel when the investigator initiated interrogation. Therefore, the court held that defendant's statements must be suppressed.