Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled no contest to the manufacture or delivery of THC. After announcing that it would place Defendant on probation, the circuit court declined defense counsel’s request to withhold its discretion on whether to expunge Defendant’s record until the end of the probationary period. In denying the request, the circuit court concluded that its decision whether to expunge an offender’s record must be made at the time of sentencing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, if a circuit court is going to exercise its discretion to expunge a record, the discretion must be exercised at the time of the sentencing proceeding. View "State v. Matasek" on Justia Law

In 2005, Ardonis Greer pled guilty to criminal charges and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment. In 2007, Greer began serving his period of probation. Subsequently, Greer was erroneously issued a discharge certificate stating that he was discharged from supervision. In 2010, Greer pled no contest to intimidating a witness. Thereafter, the Department of Corrections (DOC) discovered that Greer was still purportedly serving the probation term from his 2004 conviction and initiated revocation proceedings against Greer. The Division of Hearings and Appeals ordered Greer’s probation revoked. Greer filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the DOC lost jurisdiction to revoke his probation when it issued the discharge certificate. The circuit court reversed the Division’s decision. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the erroneous issuance of a discharge certificate did not deprive the DOC of jurisdiction to revoke Greer’s probation because his court-ordered term of probation had not expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the DOC retained jurisdiction over Greer despite the erroneous issuance of the discharge certificate; (2) Greer’s due process rights were not violated; and (3) the circuit court, sitting in certiorari, was not empowered to equitably estop the DOC from revoking Greer’s probation. View "Greer v. Wiedenhoeft" on Justia Law

On July 3, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in State v. Johnson, which affirmed an unpublished decision of the court of appeals and remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. On July 22, 2013, both Defendant and the State filed motions for reconsideration of the Court’s decision. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for reconsideration to clarify that the Court’s previous opinion represented a deadlock. Specifically, because a majority of the Court did not reach consensus under precedent so as to decide the issue presented on appeal and the Court was deadlocked, the court of appeals decision remained the law of the case and must be affirmed. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to six of the twenty-two felony counts of physical abuse of a child filed against her. The circuit court accepted Defendant’s pleas. Before Defendant was sentenced, she moved the court pro se to withdraw her pleas. The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion to withdraw her pleas, concluding that the State would be substantially prejudiced if Defendant were allowed to withdraw her pleas because the State would be preventing from presenting at trial important audiovisual interviews of the victim, who was now over sixteen years old, and without the audiovisual evidence, it would be more difficult for the State to prove its case. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it determined that the State would be substantially prejudiced if Defendant were allowed to withdraw her pleas. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with sexually assaulting his niece. During trial, the jury asked the circuit court if it needed to agree on the location of the assault, and the court responded, “no.” The court of appeals remanded for a new trial, concluding that this exchange permitted the jury to speculate beyond the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court’s response of “no” did not deprive Defendant of a unanimous verdict because, where the location of the crime was not one of the essential elements of the crime, the jurors did not need to unanimously agree on the location; and (2) Defendant failed to show that the court’s response of “no” was ambiguous or reasonably likely to cause the jury to apply the jury instructions in a manner that violated due process, as the response was unlikely to mislead the jury into believing that the victim’s credibility was irrelevant and that it could speculate beyond the evidence. View "State v. Badzinski" on Justia Law

Mother and Father chose to treat their eleven-year-old daughter's undiagnosed illness with prayer rather than medicine. Their daughter subsequently died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from untreated juvenile onset diabetes mellitus. In separate trials with different juries, Mother and Father were each convicted of second-degree reckless homicide. The parents appealed, arguing (1) their convictions for choosing treatment through prayer violated due process fair notice requirements; and (2) their convictions should be reversed because the real controversy was not fully tried due to erroneous jury instructions and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding, inter alia, (1) the second-degree reckless homicide statute and the criminal child abuse statute provided sufficient notice that the parents' conduct could have criminal consequences if their daughter died; (2) the jury instructions on parents' duty to provide medical care were not erroneous, as the statutory provision protecting treatment through prayer does not negate the legal duty to provide medical care in a second degree reckless homicide prosecution; (3) trial counsels did not provide ineffective assistance; and (4) the controversy was fully tried where the circuit court properly refused to instruct the jury on the parents' sincerely held religious belief in prayer.View "State v. Neumann" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree reckless homicide by use of a dangerous weapon. During trial, in support of his self-defense theory, Defendant filed a motion to admit evidence regarding both the victim’s reputation for violence and the victim’s specific violent acts. The circuit court denied the motion in part because Defendant did not know of the victim’s reputation at the time of the offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion to admit character evidence because, in a homicide case where a claim of self-defense is raised, character evidence may be admissible so long as Defendant had knowledge of the prior acts at the time of the offense; and (2) the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to admit testimony that the victim had a reputation for violence because Defendant failed to establish a proper foundation for the trial court to determine that evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence was admissible. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and refused a chemical test to ascertain his blood alcohol concentration. Defendant filed a request for a refusal hearing but did not file his request within the required ten-day time limit. Defendant then sought to extend that time limit. The circuit court denied the motion to extend the ten-day time limit and dismissed Defendant's request for a refusal hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court was without competency to hear Defendant's request to extend the ten-day time limit, as the time limit is a mandatory requirement that may not be extended due to excusable neglect.View "Village of Elm Grove v. Brefka" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged and convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit theft by fraud of property in excess of $10,000. The charges stemmed from Defendant's conspiracy, while in prison, that defrauded AT&T out of approximately $28,000 of phone services by furnishing the company with fraudulent information. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant made "false representations" to AT&T under the theft-by-fraud statute by submitting fictitious names and stolen personal identifying information; and (2) "property" under the theft-by-fraud statute is all forms of tangible property, including electricity, and therefore, because Defendant stole electricity from AT&T , the conspiracy perpetrated against AT&T deprived the company of its property.View "State v. Steffes" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of child pornography. Defendant moved to suppress the seized evidence, claiming that law enforcement violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his residence and viewing suspicious files on his computer after the woman he was dating invited the officer to enter the residence. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the woman had the authority to extend the invitation to the officer to cross the threshold and validly consented to the officer's entry and search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the woman had actual authority to consent to the officer's entry into the home and the living room and to consent to the officer's search of the laptop.View "State v. Sobczak" on Justia Law