Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for one count of second-degree sexual assault and one count of misdemeanor bail jumping, holding that the circuit court erred in admitting the victim's testimony regarding her lack of sexual intercourse the week prior the sexual assault but that the error was harmless.At issue was whether the victim's lack of sexual intercourse was prior "sexual conduct" pursuant to Wis. Stat. 972.11(2)(a)-(b) (the "rape shield" statute). The Supreme Court held (1) the brand language use to define "sexual conduct" in the rape shield statute's prohibition includes evidence regarding the victim's lack of sexual intercourse; and (2) while the victim's testimony regarding her lack of sexual intercourse was improperly admitted, the error in admitting the testimony was harmless. View "State v. Mulhern" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions on fifteen counts of sexual assault, fourteen of which consisted of first-degree and second-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of repeated sexual assault of a child, holding that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions for six counts but reversed his convictions for the remaining counts, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to find Defendant guilty on those counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the sufficiency of the evidence should be evaluated according to the jury instructions; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Defendant guilty on all fifteen counts at issue. View "State v. Coughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals summarily affirming the judgment of the circuit court granting the State's motion to dismiss the operating while intoxicated (OWI) count against Defendant and entering judgment against Defendant on the count of operating with a prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC), holding that there was no error.The circuit court issued a search warrant to draw Defendant's blood based on the affidavit of a police officer. Defendant's blood was drawn, revealing a blood alcohol level of an amount well above the legal limit. The State charged Defendant with fourth offense OWI, fourth offense PAC, and resisting an officer. After the circuit court denied Defendant's motion to suppress a jury found Defendant guilty of OWI and PAC. The circuit court dismissed the OWI count and entered judgment on the PAC count. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrant was supported by probable cause. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin's operating while intoxicated (OWI) graduated-penalty scheme is unconstitutional to the extent it counts prior revocations for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood draw as offenses for the purpose of increasing the criminal penalty.When Defendant was convicted of his sixth OWI offense the court counted as one of his six prior offenses a 1996 temporary revocation of Defendant's driving privileges for refusing to submit to a warrantless blood draw, which led to Defendant receiving a longer sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that Wisconsin's graduated-penalty scheme for OWI offenses is unconstitutional because it threatens criminal penalties for those who exercise their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Wis. Stat. 343.307(1) and 346.65(2)(am) are unconstitutional to the extent that they count as offenses prior revocations resulting solely from a person's refusal to submit to a warrantless blood draw for the purpose of increasing the criminal penalty. View "State v. Forrett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals that reversed in part the decision of the circuit court and determined that Defendant alleged sufficient facts so as to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, holding that the court of appeals failed to apply the correct legal framework.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual assault. Defendant filed a postconviction motion, alleging, among other things, ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The circuit court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals reversed in part, concluding that Defendant was entitled to a Machner hearing addressing his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for withdrawing his request for a self-defense instruction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals applied the incorrect legal standard to address whether the record conclusively demonstrated that Defendant was not entitled to relief; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "State v. Ruffin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that disorderly conduct is not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law and therefore does not disqualify a person from holding a license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW license).At issue was whether a conviction for disorderly conduct under Wis. Stat. 947.01(1) qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." While Wisconsin law provides that an individual who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law may not hold a CCW license, federal law prohibits firearm possession for individuals convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under either state or federal law. The circuit court upheld the revocation of Appellant's CCW license, concluding that the Department of Justice did not err in concluding that Defendant's conviction for disorderly conduct constituted a disqualifying misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Department of Justice improperly revoked Defendant's CCW license based on its incorrect view that Defendant was prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. View "Doubek v. Kaul" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part the decision of the court of appeals automatically staying the circuit court's order of commitment for treatment with the involuntary administration of medication after finding Defendant incompetent, holding that the automatic stay of involuntary medication orders pending appeal established in State v. Scott, 914 N.W.2d (Wis. 2018), does not apply to pretrial proceedings.Defendant was charged with first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon. The circuit court found Defendant incompetent and ordered him to be involuntary medicated. Defendant appealed and filed an emergency motion for stay of the involuntary medication order pending appeal. The circuit court automatically granted the motion pursuant to Scott. The court of appeals reversed the involuntary medication order and the order lifting the automatic stay of involuntary medication. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding (1) the automatic stay created in Scott shall not be applied during pretrial proceedings; and (2) Wis. Stat. 971.14(5)(a)1. is not subject to tolling in a pretrial context. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion collaterally attacking two prior convictions from 1995 and 2002, holding that the lack of a transcript meant that Defendant retained the burden to prove a violation of her right to counsel occurred.Defendant was charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI), and her driving record showed three prior OWI convictions. Defendant collaterally attacked two of those convictions, claiming that she did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive her right to counsel. The relevant documents of the convictions, however, no longer existed, and the State could therefore not produce transcripts from either case at the motion hearing. The circuit court granted Defendant's motion, concluding that Defendant's testimony shifted the burden to the State, which submitted insufficient evidence to refute the testimony. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant retained the burden to demonstrate a violation of her right to counsel. View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court suppressing the results of a sheriff's deputy's blood test performed on Defendant but allowing the State to subpoena the hospital for Defendant's medical records, which included the hospital's blood-test results, holding that there was no error.After Defendant crashed his vehicle, he was taken to the hospital. While he was there, two blood tests were performed - the first one by the hospital for treatment purposes and a later one at the direction of the deputy for diagnostic and investigative purposes. Defendant moved to suppress the results of the deputy's blood draw because the deputy had no warrant and no exceptions to the warrant requirement applied. The circuit court granted the motion. Thereafter, the court granted the State's request to issue a subpoena to the hospital for Defendant's medical records. On appeal, Defendant argued that those results should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hospital's blood-test results were admissible under the independent-source doctrine. View "State v. Linn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court adopted proposed remedial state senate and state assembly maps submitted by Governor Tony Evers in response to the Court's call for proposed maps for the set of districts where new district boundaries were required due to this Court's holding that maps enacted into law in 2011 were unconstitutional, holding that Governor Evers' maps satisfied all requirements.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) as to the proposed congressional maps, Governor Evers' proposed congressional map most complied with this Court's least-change directive, the federal Constitution, and all other applicable laws; and (2) as to the proposed State legislative maps, the Governor's proposed senate and assembly maps produced less overall change than other submissions, and the Governor's proposals satisfied the requirements of the state and federal constitutions. View "Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law