Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to felony forgery. After Defendant was sentenced he filed a motion for resentencing, arguing that his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was violated because compelled, self-incriminating statements to his probation agent were appended to the report of the presentence investigation the circuit court reviewed at sentencing. The circuit court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed and granted resentencing based on ineffective assistance of counsel, which the court of appeals raised sua sponte. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) assuming, without deciding, that Defendant’s statements to his probation agent were compelled, Defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by actually relying on Defendant’s compelling, incriminating statements in imposing sentence; and (2) therefore, Defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s lack of objection to those statements. View "State v. Alexander" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of three offenses. Defendant filed two postconviction motions requesting a new trial, asserting that the circuit court judge, Jon M. Counsell, had no authority to preside over Defendant’s trial or sentencing because Defendant had filed a proper request for substitution of judge and the request had been granted. The circuit court denied the postconviction motions. The court of appeals summarily reversed the judgment of conviction and postconviction order and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant did not forfeit his statutory right to peremptory substitution of the judge; and (2) harmless error did not apply in this case when the circuit court erred by presiding over Defendant’s trial, sentencing, and postconviction motions. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Harrison" on Justia Law

In these two consolidated cases, the court of appeals affirmed the circuit courts’ orders denying Defendants’ petitions for discharge from involuntary commitment under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 as a sexually violent person. Defendants argued, inter alia, that the circuit courts erred by declining to apply the Daubert evidentiary standard under Wis. Stat. 907.02(1) to the prosecution’s expert witnesses who testified in Defendants’ discharge petition trials because the petitions commenced “actions” or “special proceedings” after the Daubert standard’s first date of applicability. (The underlying chapter 980 commitments commenced several years before the Daubert standard’s first date of applicability.) The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Daubert evidentiary standard under section 907.02(1) did not apply to expert testimony in Defendants’ chapter 980 discharge petition trials because their discharge petitions did not “commence” “actions” or “special proceedings”; and (2) Defendants’ equal protection and due process rights were not violated because the legislature had a rational basis for not applying the Daubert evidentiary standard to expert testimony in post-Daubert chapter 980 discharge petitions that seek relief from pre-Daubert chapter 980 commitments. View "State v. Knipfer" on Justia Law

Fred and Tina Preisler operated a dairy farm and raised cattle. The Preislers hired Kuettel’s Septic to apply septage, which is primarily composed of human urine and fecal material, to their farm fields. The Preislers subsequently experienced problems with their well water. The Preislers sued Kuettel’s Septic, other defendants, and their insurers, alleging, among other claims, negligence in storing and in applying septage resulting in nuisance and trespass. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the insurers, concluding that a pollution exclusion clause precluded coverage for harm resulting from the Preislers’ water supply’s contamination. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that “a reasonable insured would understand that decomposing septage is a ‘contaminant’ and therefore a ‘pollutant’ as defined in the policies when it has decomposed and seeps into a water supply.” View "Preisler v. Kuettel's Septic Serv., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2011, Robert and Jane Falk spread liquid cow manure onto their farm fields for the purpose of fertilization. The manure leeched into and contaminated the wells of the Falks’ neighbors. Wilson Mutual Insurance Company, the Falks’ insurer, filed a declaratory judgment motion claiming it did not have a duty to defend or indemnify the Falks against allegations that they negligently spread manure on their property and thereby polluted their neighbors’ wells. The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that the Wilson Mutual policy issued to the Falks contained an exclusion for pollution and that manure is unambiguously a pollutant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that manure is not a pollutant because, to a reasonable farmer, manure is “liquid gold.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the pollution exclusion in the policy unambiguously excludes coverage for well contamination caused by the seepage of cow manure. View "Wilson Mut. Ins. Co. v. Falk" on Justia Law

George Kontos owned property that his daughter lived in with her family and multiple dogs. Plaintiff was injured on Kontos’ property when she was bitten multiple times by the dogs. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Kontos and his insurance company, alleging that Kontos was liable for her injuries under Wis. Stat. 174.02(1), which imposes strict liability on dog owners for injuries caused by their dogs. The circuit court determined that Kontos was a statutory owner because he gave shelter to his daughter and her dogs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) mere ownership of the property on which a dog resides is not sufficient to establish that an individual is an owner of a dog under section 174.02; and (2) Kontos was not an “owner” under the statute where he did not legally own or keep the dogs and because he was not a “harborer” as evidenced by the totality of the circumstances. View "Augsburger v. Homestead Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant, sixth offense. Defendant subsequently filed a post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the motion, and Defendant’s post-conviction counsel filed a no-merit report with the court of appeals. The court of appeals accepted the no-merit report and affirmed the conviction. Defendant petitioned for review. While the petition was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Missouri v. McNeely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) McNeely applies retroactively to the facts of this case, rending the warrantless nonconsensual blood draw performed on Defendant unconstitutional, but the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule precludes suppression of the evidence; and (2) the court of appeals properly accepted post-conviction counsel’s no-merit report. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

Defendant was the driver of a vehicle that struck the victim as she crossed a street. Defendant was transported to a hospital, where hospital personnel conducted a warrantless investigatory blood draw upon the orders of the police. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle. At issue on appeal was whether the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Missouri v. McNeely did rendered unconstitutional the warrantless blood draw performed on Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s arrest was lawful because the police had probable cause to believe that Defendant had committed a drunk-driving related crime; and (2) assuming, without deciding, that the warrantless investigatory blood draw performed on Defendant was not supported by exigent circumstances, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Defendant was involved in a single-vehicle accident that killed one of the occupants of the vehicle. Defendant, who denied being the driver, was being treated at the hospital when the hospital staff performed a warrantless blood draw at the instructions of a sheriff’s deputy. Defendant moved to suppress the blood draw as an unreasonable search without a warrant. The circuit court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant was subsequently found guilty of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle and other crimes. The court of appeals upheld the conviction, concluding that probable cause and exigent circumstances supported the blood draw. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrantless blood draw was constitutional because it was supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. View "State v. Tullberg" on Justia Law

Milwaukee County calculates pension payments for its retired employees by multiplying a retiree’s final average salary by a certain percentage known as a multiplier. The resulting number is then multiplied by the retiree’s total years of county service. Suzanne Stoker and her labor union filed a complaint against the County and the Milwaukee County Pension Board, arguing that an ordinance passed by the County in 2011 that reduced the multiplier for all county service performed on or after the effective date of the ordinance was a breach of contract because she had a vested right to have the former, higher multiplier apply to her post-2011 county service and because she did not personally consent to the reduction. The circuit court granted summary judgment and declaratory and injunctive relief to Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the County did not breach Stoker’s contractual right to retirement system benefits earned and vested when it amended the pension multiplier, and the County did have the ability to make the reductions of the multiplier without Stoker’s personal consent. Remanded. View "Suzanne Stoker v. Milwaukee County" on Justia Law