Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief on the basis that the video-recorded forensic interviews of Defendant's victims were inadmissible, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the three video-recorded forensic interviews during Defendant's trial.Defendant was charged with sexually abusing three victims, who were ages four through seven at the time of the assaults. Before trial, the State informed Defendant and the circuit court of its intent to introduce the video recordings of the victims' forensic interviews into evidence. The court allowed the State to introduce the video recordings. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts. The trial court later denied Defendant's motion for postconviction relief. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the video recordings were not admissible. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant forfeited several of his objections to the admissibility of the forensic interviews; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the three video-recorded forensic interviews during Defendant's trial. View "State v. Mercado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's judgment of conviction and the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the felon-in-possession statute as applied to Defendant as applied to Defendant is constitutional.In 2003, Defendant was convicted of multiple felony counts of failure to support a child. Consequently, Defendant was permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm. Defendant was subsequently charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of Wis. Stat. 941.29(2). Defendant moved for postconviction relief, arguing that section 941.29(2) was unconstitutional as applied because his 2003 conviction did not justify the lifetime firearm ban. The circuit court denied postconviction relief, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's challenge to the felon-in-possession statute requires the application of an intermediate level of scrutiny; and (2) the statute is constitutional as applied because it is substantially related to important governmental objectives. View "State v. Roundtree" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a local zoning court of appeals approving homeowners' variance request, holding that, pursuant to Wis. Stat. 62.23(7)(e)10., certiorari review of the board's decision is triggered when a written copy of the decision is filed in the board's office.The homeowners in this case petitioned the Village of Williams Bay Extraterritorial Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance request. The Board unanimously approved the variance. Plaintiff, the homeowners' neighbor, filed for a writ of certiorari within thirty days after the Board orally voted to grant the variance but before the Board issued and filed a written copy of its decision. The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the court of appeals properly determined what constitutes the "triggering event" for purposes of appealing the Board's decision on a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) an aggrieved party's right to certiorari review is triggered when a written copy of a zoning board of appeals' decision is filed in the office of the board; (2) the Board's written decision and approved minutes were properly included in the certiorari record; and (3) the Board acted under the correct theory of law. View "Moreschi v. Village of Williams Bay" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the circuit court's judgment and order denying Defendant's postconviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea, holding that counsel was not ineffective and Defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea post-sentencing.Defendant pleaded guilty to violation of sex offender registry and was sentenced. Almost one year later, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and that, as a result, his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. After a hearing, the circuit court denied Defendant's postconviction motion. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance in failing to inform Defendant about State v. Dinkins, 810 N.W.2d 787 (Wis. 2012), because Dinkins did not provide Defendant with a defense. View "State v. Savage" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's denial of Defendant's Wis. Stat. Chapter 980 petition for discharge from his commitment as a sexually violent person, holding that the court of appeals did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the State is not required to present expert testimony to prove the required dangerousness element in Wis. Stat. 980.01(7); (2) the holding in In re Commitment of Curiel, 597 N.W.2d 697 (Wis. 1999), that the appropriate standard of review to use in Chapter 980 cases is the sufficiency of the evidence test set forth is reaffirmed; and (3) the evidence in the record satisfied the sufficiency of the evidence standard. View "State v. Stephenson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court rejected Donald Trump's effort to invalidate more than 220,000 votes from Dane and Milwaukee Counties in the 2020 presidential election, holding that the challenge to indefinitely confined voter ballots was without merit and that laches barred relief on the remaining three categories of challenged ballots.Petitioners brought this action seeking to invalidated a sufficient number of Wisconsin ballots to change Wisconsin's certified election results, focusing its objections on four different categories of ballots applying only to voters in Dane and Milwaukee County. Among those challenged ballots were ballots cast by voters who claimed indefinitely confined status since March 25, 2020. The Supreme Court concluded that the Petitioners were not entitled to the requested relief, holding (1) the challenge to the indefinitely confined voter ballots was meritless on its face; and (2) the other three categories of challenged ballots failed under the doctrine of laches. View "Trump v. Biden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Governor Evers' Emergency Order #12 did not render all Wisconsin electors "indefinitely confined," thereby obviating the requirement of a valid photo identification to obtain an absentee ballot.Petitioners, Mark Jefferson and the Republican Part of Wisconsin, filed a petition for original action seeking a declaration that Respondents lacked the authority to issue an interpretation of Wisconsin's election law allowing all electors in Dane County to obtain an absentee ballot without photo identification and that the Emergency Order did not authorize all Wisconsin voters to obtain an absentee ballot without a photo identification. The Supreme Court answered (1) Wis. Stat. 6.86(2)(a) requires that each individual elector make his or her own determination as to whether the elector is indefinitely confined, and an elector is indefinitely confined for purposes of section 6.86(2)(a) for only the enumerated reasons therein; and (2) Respondents' interpretation of Wisconsin election laws was erroneous. View "Jefferson v. Dane County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court's judgment and order denying Defendant's postconviction motion to withdraw his Alford plea, holding that Defendant did not meet his burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would result if he were not permitted to withdraw his plea.Defendant entered an Alford plea to second-degree sexual assault of a child. After he was sentenced, Defendant filed a postconviction motion seeking to withdraw his Alford plea, arguing that the circuit court failed to establish strong proof of guilt as to each element of the offense. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record demonstrated that there was a sufficient factual basis to support strong proof of Defendant's guilty for each of the two elements of the offense. View "State v. Nash" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by holding that Wis. Stat. 803.09(2m) grants the Wisconsin Legislature the authority to represent the State's interest in the validity of state laws.The question here arose in the context of litigation in federal court over election-related laws. The Wisconsin Legislature was denied standing to appeal an adverse ruling below. The Seventh Circuit subsequently requested that the Supreme Court decide whether, under section 803.09(2m), the Wisconsin Legislature has the authority to represent the State's interest in the validity of state laws. The Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative, holding that the Legislature does have that authority. View "Democratic National Committee v. Bostelmann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioners' petition for leave to commence an original action and motion for temporary injunctive relief in this election matter, holding that it was too late to grant Petitioners any form of relief that would be feasible and that would not cause confusion and undue damage to the Wisconsin electors and the other candidates in the various races on the general election ballot.Petitioners were the Green Party's candidates for President and Vice President of the United States. Because the Commission failed to certify at least 2000 valid signatures Petitioners filed a petition for leave to commence an original action and a motion for temporary injunctive relief asking that the Supreme Court order that their names be placed on Wisconsin's 2020 fall general election ballot. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Petitioners delayed seeking relief in a situation where hundreds, if not thousands, of absentee ballots have already been mailed to electors; and (2) therefore, this Court declines to exercise its original jurisdiction due to the lack of sufficient time to complete its review and award any effective relief without completely upsetting the election. View "Hawkins v. Wisconsin Elections Commission" on Justia Law