Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of operating while intoxicated (OWI) sixth offense, in violation of Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(a), holding that Defendant's constitutional right to be free from abusive governmental searches was satisfied in this case, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the warrant compelling him to submit to a blood draw was constitutionally defective because, when the affiant signed the affidavit that accompanied the warrant petition, the affiant was not placed under oath or affirmation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the affidavit fulfilled the oath or affirmation requirement under the state and federal Constitutions; and (2) therefore the circuit court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Moeser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court denying Defendant's postconviction motion but reversing the denial of Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing, holding that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count each of felony murder and possession of a firearm by a felon. In his motion for postconviction relief Defendant argued that the trial judge's ex parte contact with one juror violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to hearsay testimony. The circuit court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of the motion but reversed and remanded on the ground that Defendant was entitled to a hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Spencer" on Justia Law

In this case regarding the interpretation of Wis. Stat. 939.46(1m) and the scope of the "affirmative defense for any offense committed as a direct result" of human or child sex trafficking the Supreme Court held that the statute is a complete defense to first-degree intentional homicide.Defendant was charged with first-degree intentional homicide, arson, and several other offenses in connection with the death of the man she says trafficked her. At issue was whether Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the defense provided in section 939.46(1m) at trial as to some or all of the charges against her. The Supreme Court declined to answer this question because it would be available to Defendant at trial only if she put forth some evidence to support its application. The Court then held that if Defendant does provide such evidence, it will be the State's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not apply. View "State v. Kizer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence of two years of initial confinement and two years of extended supervision imposed after he pled no contest to one of six charges of sexual assault, holding that each of the sentencing factors Defendant challenged on appeal bore a reasonable nexus to proper and relevant sentencing factors of general deterrence and protection of the public.Defendant was convicted for sexually assaulting his younger sisters while they were living in an Amish Community. During sentencing, the circuit court commented on the need for adults in the Amish community to intervene to protect the females in the community from sexual abuse. On appeal, Defendant argued that those statements violated his First Amendment rights to religious liberty and association. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no evidence that the circuit court increased Defendant's sentence solely because of his association with the Amish community or his religious beliefs; and (2) the circuit court's challenged statements core a reasonable nexus to the relevant and proper sentencing factors. View "State v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court convicting Defendant on the charge of first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon and being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated.At issue was whether Defendant's constitutional right to counsel was violated when a jail inmate secretly recorded conversations with Defendant and when the State admitted those recordings into evidence. The court of appeals reversed on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, concluding that trial counsel's failure to seek suppression of the recording fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated because Defendant was not acting as a State agent when he recorded his conversations with Defendant. View "State v. Arrington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals to reverse the judgment of the circuit court denying the State's request to have X.S. waived into adult court and to remand the case, holding that remand was not required for a new waiver hearing because a new waiver hearing was unnecessary.X.S. was charged with eight counts of first-degree reckless injury with use of a dangerous weapon for opening fire in Mayfair Mall located outside Milwaukee. The Sate sought to have X.S. waived into adult court instead of remaining in juvenile court. The circuit court denied the request, but the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new waiver hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed but remanded the case to the circuit court with instructions to grant the State's waiver petition, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying the waiver petition. View "State v. X.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the circuit court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, including a handgun, obtained as a result of an investigative stop, holding that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe Defendant was involved in criminal activity.Defendant was charged with being a felon in possession. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the investigative stop leading to the discovery of the handgun violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The circuit court denied the motion, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights because they reasonably suspected Defendant was involved in criminal activity presenting an imminent threat to public safety. View "State v. Nimmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for one count of second-degree sexual assault and one count of misdemeanor bail jumping, holding that the circuit court erred in admitting the victim's testimony regarding her lack of sexual intercourse the week prior the sexual assault but that the error was harmless.At issue was whether the victim's lack of sexual intercourse was prior "sexual conduct" pursuant to Wis. Stat. 972.11(2)(a)-(b) (the "rape shield" statute). The Supreme Court held (1) the brand language use to define "sexual conduct" in the rape shield statute's prohibition includes evidence regarding the victim's lack of sexual intercourse; and (2) while the victim's testimony regarding her lack of sexual intercourse was improperly admitted, the error in admitting the testimony was harmless. View "State v. Mulhern" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions on fifteen counts of sexual assault, fourteen of which consisted of first-degree and second-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of repeated sexual assault of a child, holding that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions for six counts but reversed his convictions for the remaining counts, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to find Defendant guilty on those counts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the sufficiency of the evidence should be evaluated according to the jury instructions; and (2) there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Defendant guilty on all fifteen counts at issue. View "State v. Coughlin" on Justia Law

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