Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

M.W. has been under Wis. Stats. ch. 51 mental health commitment orders since 2006. In August 2020, Sheboygan County again filed a petition to extend her commitment and sought an order for involuntary medication and treatment. The circuit court held a hearing at which three witnesses testified: a doctor, who examined M.W., a case worker assigned to M.W., and M.W. The circuit court granted the County's petition. The court of appeals reversed and remanded.The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed. The court has previously announced that "going forward circuit courts in recommitment proceedings are to make specific factual findings with reference to the subdivision paragraph of Wis. Stat. 51.20(1)(a)2. on which the recommitment is based." The court of appeals here determined that the circuit court failed to make such findings. M.W. argued that outright reversal is the proper remedy for the violation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that the recommitment order at issue has expired, so the circuit court lacks the competency to conduct any proceedings on remand. Therefore, reversal is the appropriate remedy. View "Sheboygan County v. M.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the public records law's general prohibition on pre-release judicial review of decisions to provide access to public records barred the claims brought by Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and two other trade associations (WMC) seeking to stop the release of certain records.After the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel made public records requests to the Department of Health Services (DHS) for documents related to the COVID-19 pandemic WMC learned that DHS planned to respond by releasing a list of all Wisconsin businesses with more than twenty-five employees that have had at least two employees test positive for COVID-19 or that have had close case contacts. WMC brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the release. The circuit court granted a temporary injunction. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that WMC's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because its claim was barred by Wis. Stat. 19.356(1). View "Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce v. Evers" 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 judgment of the district court denying the motion to dismiss this complaint brought by Colectivo Coffee Roasters against Society Insurance, holding that the district court erred.Collective, which experienced substantial monetary losses as a result of the COVID-10 pandemic and related government restrictions on in-person dining, brought this class action complaint against Society seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for breach of contract, alleging that Society was required to compensate it for the business income it lost during the pandemic. Society filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that none of the policy's coverage provisions applied. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Colectivo failed to state a claim for coverage under the Society policy's business income, extra expense, civil authority, or contamination provisions. View "Colectivo Coffee Roasters, Inc. v. Society Insurance" 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 affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court granting Defendants' motion for the application of Wis. Stat. Chapter 655 and dismissing the wrongful death claim brought by Plaintiff on behalf of the estate of her mother, Anne Oros, and in Plaintiff's capacity as Oros's daughter, holding that dismissal was not warranted.Oros allegedly died as a result of negligence on the part of Divine Savior Healthcare, Inc. Divine Savior and its insurer (collectedly, Defendants) argued that Plaintiff could not bring a wrongful death claim as an adult child of Oros because the liability protections given to certain healthcare providers under Chapter 655 barred the claim. The circuit court concluded that Chapter 655 applied and dismissed the claim. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff's wrongful death claim was not subject to Chapter 655 and that dismissal was not warranted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that dismissal under Chapter 655 of Plaintiff's wrongful death claim was not warranted. View "Estate of Anne Oros v. Divine Savior Healthcare Inc." 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