Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Lauren, a thirteen-year-old girl, alleged that her father, Jobert Molde, sexually assaulted her between January 2011 and January 2012. These allegations surfaced in 2017 after Lauren attempted suicide. Molde was charged with first-degree sexual assault of a child under twelve and incest with a child. The key evidence against Molde included Lauren's in-court testimony and a recording of her forensic interview.The Dunn County Circuit Court allowed a nurse practitioner to testify as an expert, but she was unavailable, so Dr. Alice Swenson, a licensed child abuse pediatrician, testified instead. Dr. Swenson supervised Lauren's forensic interview but did not personally evaluate her. During the trial, a juror asked Dr. Swenson about the frequency of false sexual abuse disclosures, to which she responded that false disclosures are extraordinarily rare, around one percent. Molde's counsel did not object to this testimony. The jury found Molde guilty on both counts. Molde then moved for postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to Dr. Swenson's testimony. The circuit court denied the motion.The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Dr. Swenson's testimony constituted impermissible vouching and that Molde's attorney was ineffective for not objecting. The state petitioned for review, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted it.The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Dr. Swenson's statistical testimony did not violate the Haseltine rule, which prohibits witnesses from vouching for another witness's credibility. The court held that statistical evidence alone about the prevalence of false reporting does not constitute impermissible vouching. Since Dr. Swenson did not opine on Lauren's truthfulness, Molde's counsel was not deficient for failing to object. Therefore, Molde's ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed, and the court reversed the decision of the court of appeals. View "State v. Molde" on Justia Law

Following a high-speed chase, Kordell L. Grady was charged with multiple criminal offenses. He accepted a plea deal, pleading no contest to three charges. The dispute arose over whether Grady's due process rights were violated during a restitution hearing, where he was ordered to pay for damages caused to a law enforcement vehicle during the chase. Grady's counsel argued he lacked the ability to pay, and Grady, attending via Zoom, interrupted the proceedings. The court allowed him to speak with his attorney but warned that the conversation could be heard by everyone in the courtroom. Grady's statements undermined his counsel's argument, and the court ordered him to pay the full restitution amount.Grady filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his due process rights were violated because he could not consult confidentially with his counsel, and that the Assistant District Attorney improperly used his statements. The circuit court rejected these arguments, finding that Grady did not intend for his conversation to be confidential. The court of appeals summarily affirmed the circuit court's decision.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the case and deferred to the circuit court's factual finding that Grady did not intend for his conversation with his counsel to be confidential. The Supreme Court held that Grady's due process rights were not violated, as he did not seek a confidential conversation. Consequently, his conversation was not privileged under Wisconsin Statute § 905.03(2). The decision of the court of appeals was affirmed. View "State v. Grady" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant who fell asleep in a McDonald's drive-thru lane. An employee woke him up and called the police. The responding officer observed the defendant driving normally and without any signs of impairment. However, the officer decided to pull the defendant over due to the report of him falling asleep. The defendant explained that he was tired from a 24-hour shift. Despite not observing any signs of impairment, the officer prolonged the stop to investigate further. The officer eventually ordered the defendant out of his truck, at which point the defendant showed signs of intoxication, leading to his arrest and charges.The defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the stop. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the stop and further investigation were justified as a permissible "community caretaking function." The court of appeals agreed with the lower court's decision.The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, even if the traffic stop was permissible as a community caretaking activity, the court held that the stop was unreasonably prolonged when it transformed into an unjustified criminal investigation. The court stated that the scope of caretaking stops should be guided and limited by the justification for the stop. This means that, absent another permissible reason to detain someone, the detention must end when the original community caretaking justification is resolved. The court remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions to vacate the judgment of conviction and grant the motion to suppress. View "State v. Wiskowski" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the defendant, Antonio S. Davis, who was charged with misdemeanor battery and disorderly conduct. Davis had applied for representation from the State Public Defender (SPD) and while his application was still being processed, he was arraigned. Consequently, Davis pleaded not guilty and further proceedings were scheduled. It was not until 65 days later that the SPD appointed counsel for Davis. Six days after counsel was appointed, Davis filed a request for substitution of judge, which was denied by the Circuit Court for Dane County as untimely.Davis then filed a petition for supervisory writ, arguing that the Circuit Court had a plain duty to treat his request for substitution of judge as timely. The Court of Appeals denied his petition and the case was brought before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for review. The Supreme Court needed to decide whether Davis had forfeited the issues he brought forth and whether he was entitled to a supervisory writ directing the lower court to treat his request for substitution of judge as timely.The Supreme Court concluded that even if Davis had forfeited the issues, they would exercise discretion to address them to clarify the procedure for appealing a denial of a request for substitution of judge as untimely. However, the court found that Davis was not entitled to a supervisory writ, asserting that the lower court did not have a plain duty to treat Davis's request as timely under Wisconsin Statute § 971.20(4), Dane County Local Rule 208, a government-created obstacle exception, or a theory of equitable tolling. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Davis v. Circuit Court for Dane County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court affirming the decision of the State Claims Board awarding Appellant $25,000 in compensation after finding Appellant was innocent of a crime for which he was imprisoned, holding that Wis. Stat. 775.05(4) does not compel the Board to make a finding regarding adequacy.Appellant pled no contest to first-degree intentional homicide and spent approximately twenty-six years in prison. After his second guilty plea was vacated Appellant petitioned the State Claims Board for compensation, seeking more than $5.7 million. The Board awarded the maximum under Wis. Stat. 775.05(4). Appellant sought judicial review, arguing that the Board should have made a finding regarding the adequacy of the amount awarded. The circuit court affirmed, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals grafted onto the statute a process the legislature did not sanction. View "Sanders v. State of Wis. Claims Bd." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the case against him with prejudice after a mistrial was declared, holding that retrial would not violate Defendant's right against double jeopardy.Defendant was tried on one count of trafficking of a child. During trial, the trial court declared a mistrial on the basis that certain evidence was improperly admitted. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that retrial would violate his right under the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, to be free against double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court exercised sound discretion in ordering a mistrial based on manifest necessity and that retrial will not violate Defendant's Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for second-degree sexual assault on the grounds that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial, holding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a mistrial.At issue was whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a mistrial after a witness stated during his testimony about his suspicion of Defendant that he "looked on CCAP" - a term that stands for consolidated court automation programs, which makes information about circuit court and appellate court cases available to the public. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's mistrial motion. View "State v. Debrow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's order dismissing a criminal complaint against Defendant as barred by double jeopardy, holding that neither double jeopardy, issue preclusion under the Double Jeopardy Clause, or common law issue preclusion barred the present prosecution.The first criminal case against Defendant ended in a mistrial intentionally provoked by the prosecutor. Thereafter, Defendant argued that double jeopardy, and, in the alternative, issue preclusion barred the State from prosecuting the instant case. The circuit court granted relief, concluding that Defendant was in jeopardy of being convicted of the offenses now charged. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the present prosecution did not place Defendant in jeopardy for any of the same offenses; and (2) issue preclusion did not bar the instant prosecution. View "State v. Killian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief in this challenge to a condition of extended supervision and probation that prohibited Petitioner from living with any women or unrelated children without the permission of the court, holding that the circuit court erred by denying Petitioner's request to transfer the approval power to the Department of Corrections (DOC) without clarifying how the imposed condition was lawful.In denying Petitioner's postconviction motion to transfer the authority to regulate Defendant's residential placements to DOC the circuit court concluded that the DOC's practices were "incompatible with the program of probation envisioned by the court." The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court "all but said it intended to administer [Defendant's] condition through case-by-case oversight, which it cannot do." The Court remanded the cause to the circuit court for it to clarify how the imposed condition was consistent with the law or to modify its order accordingly. View "State v. Williams-Holmes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court to suppress the results of a search of Defendant, holding that the law enforcement officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant, and therefore, the underlying search was a lawful search incident to arrest.A police officer executed a traffic stop of Defendant for speeding and, during her initial contact with Defendant, "detected an odor of raw marijuana." The officer called for back-up, and two officers escorted Defendant out of the vehicle. The officers proceeded to search Defendant based on the odor of marijuana and found two baggies containing cocaine and fentanyl. Defendant filed a motion to suppress on the grounds that the State lacked probable cause to arrest and search him. The circuit court granted the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant on the belief that he was committing or had committed a crime, and therefore, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law