Justia Wisconsin Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his convictions of four counts of child enticement after the circuit court declined to suppress an incriminating statement Defendant made to police officers who were conducting a follow up investigation of incriminating admissions that Defendant made to his probation agent during a compelled polygraph examination. Defendant claimed that his admissions to the agent were subject to use and derivative use immunity, and that the derivative use immunity covered the subsequent statement he made to the police, even though this statement was preceded by a valid Miranda warning. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) Defendant's statement to officers was subject to derivative use immunity and could not be used in any subsequent criminal trial; and (2) Defendant's compelled statement to his probation agent, his subsequent statement to the police, and any evidence derived from either statement must be suppressed in any criminal trial. View "State v. Spaeth" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon and one count of carrying a concealed weapon. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant made incriminating statements while in police custody and while being subjected to interrogation by police officers, he had a Fifth Amendment right to receive Miranda warnings; (2) accordingly, it was error to admit the incriminating statements at trial; and (3) because the State did not meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found Defendant guilty absent the error, the error was not harmless. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint against St. Patrick Congregation, alleging that her employment was terminated for an improper reason. The circuit court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, concluding that because St. Patrick was a religious institution and Plaintiff was a ministerial employee, Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a court may not review whether St. Patrick improperly terminated its ministerial employee because St. Patrick's choice of who shall serve as its ministerial employee is a matter of church governance protected from state interference by the First Amendment and by Wis. Const. art. I, 18; and (2) accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which a court may grant relief. View "DeBruin v. St. Patrick Congregation" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree sexual assault of a child under the age of thirteen without great bodily harm. Following Defendant's conviction, all the principals in this case learned that Defendant was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years in prison. Defendant moved for a new trial on the basis that he was denied his due process rights when he was not adequately informed of the penalty of the crime prior to going to a jury trial. The circuit court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Defendant's lack of knowledge regarding a mandatory minimum sentence could not have interfered with Defendant's right to plea bargain because he did not have such a right. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the case must be remanded to the circuit court for a hearing to determine whether Defendant was prejudiced by the violations of Wis. Stat. 970.02(1)(a), which requires the judge who presides at an initial appearance to inform the defendant of the possible penalties for the offenses in the complaint. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to second-degree recklessly endangering safety with a deadly weapon. Defendant moved for postconviction relief wherein he sought to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate the judgment, asserting that the proceeding at which he pled guilty via videoconferencing violated due process as well as his statutory right to be present under Wis. Stat. 971.04(1)(g). Defendant argued that he could not have effectively waived his right to challenge the use of videoconferencing because he was not aware that such a right existed. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 971.04(1)(g) provides a criminal defendant the statutory right to be in the same courtroom as the presiding judge when a plea hearing is held, if the court accepts the plea and pronounces judgment; but (2) this statutory right may be waived, and Defendant waived it prior to pleading and the court's pronouncement of judgment. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with being a party to the crime of possession with intent to deliver more than 10,000 grams of THC. Smith stipulated to the fact that the packages seized by the police contained more than 10,000 grams of THC. Prior to the jury's deliberations, the circuit court answered a verdict question for the jury concerning the weight of the drugs. The jury then found Defendant guilty as charged. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the cause, holding that Defendant did not waive his right to a jury determination of the drug quantity. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the guilty verdict and judgment of conviction, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction; and (2) although the circuit court erred in determining the drug quantity without submitting the question to the jury, the error was harmless because it was clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed, rational jury would have found Defendant guilty of the charged offense absent the error. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 1992, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree sexual assault of a person under the age of sixteen years. Nearly eighteen years after his conviction, Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, basing his motion on Wis. Stat. 971.08, which allows a defendant to withdraw a guilty or no contest plea where a plea-accepting court fails to personally advise the defendant of the potential immigration consequences of the plea. The circuit court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed. The court assumed that Defendant had not been personally advised as required under the statute, but, as Defendant was aware of the potential immigration consequences of his plea, the court concluded that any failure to personally advise him was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was properly denied, as Defendant's affidavit did not allege sufficient facts that, if true, would entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea. View "State v. Negrete" on Justia Law

The two plaintiffs in this case, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) and Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Limited (AEGIS), brought suit against the defendant, Arby Construction, Inc. (Arby), for indemnification of the damages that the plaintiffs paid in the settlement of a tort suit in federal court. The circuit court dismissed the AEGIS claim against Arby on the basis of claim preclusion. At issue on appeal was whether AEGIS raised, in the form of an affirmative defense, a cross-claim against Arby in the prior federal action and was therefore precluded from pursuing the same claim in this action because the claim was adjudicated in the federal judgment of dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, which affirmed the circuit court, holding that AEGIS's claim was raised, in substance, in the prior federal action and was decided. Therefore, the claim was subject to claim preclusion and was properly dismissed by the circuit court. View "Wis. Pub. Serv. Corp. v. Arby Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSC) correctly concluded the Wisconsin Power and Light's (WPL) application to construct a large, out-of-state, electric generating facility was properly reviewed under Wis. Stat. 196.49(3), the certificate of authority (CA) statute, or whether Wis. Stat. 196.491(3), the certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) statute, should have been applied. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order, which affirmed the PSC's interim order, holding that the PSC's interpretation of the CPCN law as applying exclusively to in-state facilities and its decision to analyze WPL's application under the CA law were reasonable, and there was not a more reasonable interpretation of the CA and CPCN laws. View "Wis. Indus. Energy Group v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n" on Justia Law

This case concerned a circuit court's order to transfer to a tribal court a civil suit that was brought against a tribally owned entity by a nonmember of the tribe. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it transferred the action to tribal court. At issue was the interpretation and application of Wis. Stat. 801.54, which authorizes the circuit court, in its discretion, to transfer an action to the tribal court and sets forth the conditions for doing so. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the facts and the applicable law were not fully stated and considered together in making the determinations that the statute requires, the order to transfer was an erroneous exercise of the circuit court's discretion. Remanded. View "Kroner v. Oneida Seven Generations Corp." on Justia Law