42 results for 'court:"Wisconsin Supreme Court"'.
J. Ziegler finds against defendant in his appeal claiming his second prosecution for sexual assault of a minor exposes him to double jeopardy since the charges largely deal with matters from the first prosecution, which ended in a mistrial and dismissal caused by intentional overreach by a prosecutor who attempted to broaden the time frame of the allegations and introduce other acts evidence and amend the information during trial against the court's orders. Defendant was never exposed to jeopardy for the specific 10 charges in his new case, in part because they were never charged and fully addressed before the initial mistrial, so defendant was never at risk of being convicted of them, and constitutional and common law issue preclusion do not bar the new charges because the initial mistrial and dismissal means there was no "valid judicial determination of the ultimate fact" or actual litigation of the scope of defendant's jeopardy. The court of appeals incorrectly upheld the circuit court's dismissal of the new criminal complaint, and the matter is remanded to take up defendant's argument of "prosecutorial vindictiveness." Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Ziegler, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: 2020AP002012-CR, Categories: Constitution, Sex Offender, Double Jeopardy
J. Walsh Bradley finds the circuit court properly dismissed the village from the property owners’ lawsuit appealing a special assessment because they did not serve the village according to controlling statutes. The relevant law unambiguously requires service in writing directly to the village clerk, and the property owners failed to follow it by instead emailing their summons and complaint and notice of appeal to the village’s attorney, even though the attorney told them at the time that he was accepting service on behalf of the village. The village clerk also does not qualify as a “party” to the lawsuit under Wisconsin statutes even though statutes require that the clerk be served with any notices of appeal in special assessment matters, in part because those officials do not “impose or enforce” special assessments. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Walsh Bradley, Filed On: June 21, 2023, Case #: 2021AP000069-FT, Categories: Municipal Law, Tax
[Consolidated] J. Hagedorn finds none of the three insurance companies that provided policies to a general contractor and shotcrete pump mix supplier are entitled to summary judgment in a lawsuit from homeowners claiming extensive damages caused by the defective construction of their pool. In a departure from a previous Wisconsin Supreme Court decision involving property damage claims which wrongfully differed from well-established law, in part by deviating from the proper "contract-focused analysis" to determine if "property damage" occurred to "other property," the record shows that coverage is triggered under all three insurance companies' policies according to the facts of the homeowners' case. Therefore, the court of appeals property overturned the circuit court's order awarding the insurance companies summary judgment. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Hagedorn, Filed On: June 20, 2023, Case #: 2019AP001085, Categories: Insurance, Contract
J. Hagedorn finds the circuit court "likely stepped over the line" by administering defendant's supervision and probation conditions after his battery conviction instead of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, conditions including a prohibition against living with any women or unrelated children without the circuit court's permission. Because Wisconsin law does not give the circuit court the kind of supervision power it granted itself by denying defendant's post-conviction motion, the matter is remanded to the circuit court so it can either clarify how its supervision and conditions imposed on defendant adheres to the law or modify its order. Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Hagedorn, Filed On: June 20, 2023, Case #: 2021AP000809-CR, Categories: Probation, Battery
J. Hagedorn finds the appeals court improperly upheld the circuit court's order suppressing evidence of cocaine and fentanyl police officers found after searching defendant during a traffic stop for speeding based on the odor of marijuana coming from his car. Given the totality of the evidence, including that officers watched defendant throw a liquid out of his car before he stopped for them, he possessed a vape pen he nevertheless claimed was use for CBD instead of THC, and one officer called the smell of marijuana coming from the car "overwhelming," a reasonable officer could meet the bar for probable cause to arrest and search defendant. Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Hagedorn, Filed On: June 20, 2023, Case #: 2021AP000938-CR, Categories: Constitution, Drug Offender, Search
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Hagedorn finds defendant is entitled to sentence credit for 433 days he spent in a county jail on charges related to stealing three trucks in the span of two hours and leading a police chase into a neighboring county, where he faced similar charges in a separate case that was ultimately consolidated with his other case while he was in jail. Under Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, defendant is entitled to sentence credit for all of five charges that were dismissed and read in when he pleaded no contest to three other charges, including a charge from the neighboring county for which he was technically freed on a signature bond even though he remained jailed in the other county on a $10,000 cash bond that he did not pay. When defendant violated probation terms of his original withheld five-year sentence and was sentenced to 18 months of confinement, the circuit court properly awarded him 433 days' sentence credit for all three dismissed and read-in charges stemming from both counties, and the court of appeals incorrectly overturned the circuit court upon appeal. Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Hagedorn, Filed On: June 14, 2023, Case #: 2021AP000462-CR, Categories: Sentencing, Theft, Vehicle
J. Dallet finds the village board trustee did not violate the property owner's due process rights by weighing in on her daughter and son-in-law's application to amend a village ordinance so they could re-zone their vacant residential property for commercial development. Because there is no due process right in Wisconsin law to an impartial decision-maker for legislative acts such as the board's amendment of a generally applicable ordinance, the trustee casting the deciding vote in favor of her daughter and son-in-law's application did not violate the property owner's due process rights, so the court of appeals correctly reversed the circuit court's ruling in favor of the property owner. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Dallet, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 2021AP001764, Categories: Zoning, Due Process
J. Grassl Bradley finds the court of appeals properly affirmed the circuit court's denial of defendant's post-conviction motion in part seeking a new trial on the basis that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses at his trial on charges of selling methamphetamine was violated by harmful hearsay testimony elicited by the state. Though the circuit court may have erred in allowing the state to elicit testimony from one police officer ostensibly to establish the state of mind of another officer who observed defendant selling meth during an unrecorded controlled buy but whose testimony was barred as a discovery sanction, the overwhelming balance of the evidence against defendant means the outcome of his trial would not have been different, so the error was harmless, assuming it occurred. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Grassl Bradley, Filed On: June 6, 2023, Case #: 2018AP002005-CR, Categories: Confrontation, Constitution, Drug Offender
Per curiam, the Wisconsin Supreme Court finds the court of appeals incorrectly upheld the circuit court's order calling for involuntary medication to restore defendant's competency. Because the state concedes it did not meet its burden under U.S. Supreme Court precedent controlling the narrow circumstances in which a lower court can order involuntary medication to make a defendant competent for trial, the court of appeals' ruling is overturned, and the case is remanded. Reversed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 2020AP819-CR, Categories: Competence, Assault, Due Process
J. Hagedorn finds the the court of appeals rightfully upheld the circuit court's findings in favor of the corporate law firm in a legal malpractice suit from a venture capital firm and shareholders in a media company over millions of dollars in penalties and taxes they faced from the IRS after they cut a deal to sell the company's stock and assets to buyers through a middleman company, which they did because selling directly to buyers would expose them to taxes they wanted to avoid. The circuit court did not err by admitting evidence that the shareholders settled claims against two other law firms because the facts of the case fit an exception in Wisconsin law barring admission of settlement evidence and, although the circuit court incorrectly permitted the law firm's attorney to reference the settlement in his closing argument to show liability, it did not abuse its discretion by denying the shareholders' motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Hagedorn, Filed On: June 2, 2023, Case #: 2020AP806, Categories: Negligence, Legal Malpractice
Per curiam, the supreme court finds the insurance company has a duty to defend the Pepsi-Cola subsidiary company in legal actions over asbestos injuries from pumps manufactured at two Waukesha foundries in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which the subsidiary faces as an assignee in a long line of corporate transfers spanning decades. Because two justices did not participate, and no majority of the remaining justices can agree to affirm or reverse, the court of appeals decision reversing the circuit court's order in favor of the insurance company stands. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 2021AP000635, Categories: Insurance, Contract
J. Karofsky finds the circuit court properly ordered defendant to register as a sex offender for 15 years subsequent to his conviction upon pleading guilty to five counts of possession of child pornography at the same hearing in a single case. The state's argument that defendant should have been required to register as a sex offender for life according to Wisconsin law fails, as the relevant statute's lifetime registry requirement is triggered when a person has been convicted of sex offenses "on two or more separate occasions," and the term "separate occasions" does not apply to multiple convictions within a single case under the statute's plain meaning and the common and ordinary meaning of the term. The circuit court also did not err when it determined defendant was ineligible for an earned release program because the record shows his substance abuse was not what caused his crime. Affirmed.
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court, Judge: Karofsky, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 2020AP001213-CR, Categories: Sentencing, Sex Offender