Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case regarding the interpretation of Wis. Stat. 939.46(1m) and the scope of the "affirmative defense for any offense committed as a direct result" of human or child sex trafficking the Supreme Court held that the statute is a complete defense to first-degree intentional homicide.Defendant was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, arson, and several other offenses in connection with the death of the man she says trafficked her. At issue was whether Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the defense provided in section 939.46(1m) at trial as to some or all of the charges against her. The Supreme Court declined to answer this question because it would be available to Defendant at trial only if she put forth some evidence to support its application. The Court then held that if Defendant does provide such evidence, it will be the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply. View "State v. Kizer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of two years of initial confinement and two years of extended supervision imposed after he pled no contest to one of six charges of sexual assault, holding that each of the sentencing factors Defendant challenged on appeal bore a reasonable nexus to proper and relevant sentencing factors of general deterrence and protection of the public.Defendant was convicted for sexually assaulting his younger sisters while they were living in an Amish Community. During sentencing, the circuit court commented on the need for adults in the Amish community to intervene to protect the females in the community from sexual abuse. On appeal, Defendant argued that those statements violated his First Amendment rights to religious liberty and association. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no evidence that the circuit court increased Defendant's sentence solely because of his association with the Amish community or his religious beliefs; and (2) the circuit court's challenged statements core a reasonable nexus to the relevant and proper sentencing factors. View "State v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court convicting Defendant on the charge of first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon and being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated.At issue was whether Defendant's constitutional right to counsel was violated when a jail inmate secretly recorded conversations with Defendant and when the State admitted those recordings into evidence. The court of appeals reversed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that trial counsel's failure to seek suppression of the recording fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because Defendant was not acting as a State agent when he recorded his conversations with Defendant. View "State v. Arrington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals to reverse the judgment of the circuit court denying the State's request to have X.S. waived into adult court and to remand the case, holding that remand was not required for a new waiver hearing because a new waiver hearing was unnecessary.X.S. was charged with eight counts of first-degree reckless injury with use of a dangerous weapon for opening fire in Mayfair Mall located outside Milwaukee. The Sate sought to have X.S. waived into adult court instead of remaining in juvenile court. The circuit court denied the request, but the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new waiver hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions to grant the State's waiver petition, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the waiver petition. View "State v. X.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, including a handgun, obtained as a result of an investigative stop, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Defendant was involved in criminal activity.Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the investigative stop leading to the discovery of the handgun violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The circuit court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because they reasonably suspected Defendant was involved in criminal activity presenting an imminent threat to public safety. View "State v. Nimmer" on Justia Law

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