Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court answered a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding whether a private school was entitled to receive public funding to transport children to its school.St. Augustine School applied for transportation benefits pursuant to Wis. Stat. 121.51 and 121.54, under which private schools are entitled to receive public funding to transport children to their schools but only one affiliated school per "religious denomination" can receive the funding in each "attendance area." The Superintendent of Public Transportation denied the application on the grounds that St. Gabriel was another school of the same religious denomination within the same attendance area. The certified question asked what information the Superintendent may consider in making a determination regarding whether two schools are affiliated with the same religious denomination. The Supreme Court answered that the Superintendent is not limited to consideration of a school's corporate documents exclusively but may also conduct a neutral and secular inquiry. View "St. Augustine School v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree intentional homicide, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims that the trial court erred in denying two pre-trial evidentiary orders.At issue was the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress the admission of incriminating cell phone data and the circuit court's discretionary decision to admit evidence from a Fitbit device allegedly worn by the victim's boyfriend at the time of the homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if some constitutional defect attended either the initial download of the cell phone data or subsequent accessing of the cell phone data, there was no law enforcement misconduct that would warrant exclusion of that data; and (2) the circuit court permissibly exercised its discretion in admitting the Fitbit evidence where no expert was required and the State sufficiently authenticated the records from Fitbit. View "State v. Burch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the circuit court concluding that it had the authority to order Paul Schwab to comply with a marital settlement agreement entered into in 1992 on the grounds that Wis. Stat. 893.40 barred Kathy Siech's action, holding that the statute posed no bar to Kathy's action.In the settlement agreement, Paul promised to pay Kathy half of his pension "when and if" that benefit became available to him. Twenty-one years later, Paul received his pension, but he refused to pay Kathy her share. Kathy sought to judicially enforce their agreement by seeking a contempt order. In response, Paul asserted that Kathy's action was barred by section 893.40's twenty-year statute of repose. The circuit court concluded that it had the authority to order Paul to comply with the settlement agreement under Johnson v. Masters, 830 N.W.2d 647. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 893.40 did not bar Kathy's action because it was impossible for Kathy to enforce Paul's promise until after the statutory period of repose had run. View "Schwab v. Schwab" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing, for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff's complaint alleging malicious prosecution, holding that a withdrawal of a prior proceeding may satisfy the favorable termination element of a malicious prosecution claim.In dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, the circuit court concluded that the complaint failed to establish that the prior proceeding was terminated in Plaintiff's favor. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this Court hereby adopts the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 674, cmt. j addressing whether a withdrawal constitutes a favorable termination; and (2) whether or not the withdrawal in this case constitutes a favorable termination remains a question for the fact-finder. The Supreme Court remanded this case to the circuit court to apply the analysis set forth in this opinion. View "Monroe v. Chase" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals determining that Wisconsin's incapacitated driver provision contained within the implied consent statute, Wis. Stat. 343.305, was unconstitutional, holding that the incapacitated driver provision is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.The court of appeals determined that the incapacitated driver provision is unconstitutional but additionally determined that the application of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule allowed for the admission of blood test evidence that Defendant sought to suppress. The Supreme Court agreed with the judgment of the court of appeals, holding (1) the incapacitated driver provision is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied under the facts of this case, and the evidence resulting from Defendant's blood draw need not be suppressed. View "State v. Prado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court imposing a child pornography surcharge for fourteen images of child pornography and the order denying plea withdrawal, holding that there was no error.Appellant was charged with fourteen counts of possession of child pornography. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled guilty to six counts of possession of child pornography. At sentencing, the circuit court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment and imposed a $500 child pornography surcharge, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 973.042(2), for each of the images of child pornography for which Appellant was charged. Appellant filed a postconviction motion seeking to have the circuit court allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, which the circuit court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in imposing the child pornography surcharge and the order that denied plea withdrawal. View "State v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the decision of the circuit court granting Defendant's motion to suppress certain statements that he made during a post-polygraph interview, holding that the statements were admissible.In granting Defendant's motion to suppress, the circuit court concluded that the statements Defendant made during his post-polygraph interview were involuntary. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statements were voluntary and admissible because the interview was separate from the polygraph examination and because the statements were not the product of police coercion. View "State v. Vice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of first-degree reckless homicide and ordering a new trial, holding that the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on perfect self-defense and second-degree reckless homicide.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the court of appeals correctly concluded that the circuit court erred by failing to instruct the jury on perfect self-defense and second-degree reckless homicide and that Defendant was entitled to a new trial on remand; and (2) the court of appeals erred in concluding that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying the admission of other-acts evidence. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's order expunging three of Defendant's convictions, holding that the circuit court erred in expunging Defendant's convictions because he failed to satisfy the Department of Correction's (DOC) "conditions of probation" for all three convictions.At issue before the Supreme Court was the correct interpretation of the phrase "conditions of probation" in Wis. Stat. 973.015(1m)(b). On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that he did not need to satisfy DOC's conditions of probation in order for the circuit court to expunge all three of his convictions. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the phrase "conditions of probation" in the statute means conditions set by both DOC and the sentencing court; and (2) section 973.015(1m)(b) does not give circuit courts discretionary authority to declare that an individual has violated "conditions of probation," including DOC-imposed conditions. View "State v. Lickes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of ten counts of possession of child pornography, holding that Defendant could not be held to a stipulation he entered in circuit court because he entered it by relying on a procedure that was invalid.Defendant pleaded not guilty to the offense of possession of child pornography but stipulated to inculpatory facts supporting each element of the offense and explicitly agreed to a finding of guilt at a circuit court hearing at which no witness testified. The circuit court convicted Defendant and sentenced him to three years' initial confinement. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for Defendant to choose whether to enter a plea or proceed to trial, holding (1) the occurrence in the circuit court was neither a guilty plea made in the customary mode more a court trial; (2) trials based on stipulated facts and a stipulated finding of guilt are not permissible in Wisconsin; and (3) because the procedure below was invalid, Defendant could not be held to the stipulation. View "State v. Beyer" on Justia Law