Connor Hansen

The case involved Charles May, who was charged as a party to the crime of delivering a controlled substance after assisting his girlfriend in selling amphetamines to an undercover officer; May claimed he withdrew from the transaction upon suspecting a police setup and did not participate in the actual delivery. The primary issues on review were whether the trial court erred by responding to a jury question during deliberations without counsel or the defendant present, whether a person can withdraw from aiding and abetting a crime under Wisconsin law, and whether the defendant was denied a unanimous verdict. The Wisconsin Supreme Court examined the applicable statutes on parties to crime and defendant presence, along with the trial record showing the girlfriend's guilty plea and testimony about May's role. It ultimately affirmed the decision of the court of appeals.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved William Taplick, a non-employee applicant for a Programmer III position with the City of Madison, who was denied certification for the job without being given reasons or an opportunity for a hearing before the personnel board. The trial court and court of appeals ruled that the city ordinance created a property interest entitling Taplick to due process protections, including notice and a hearing to refute the personnel director's decision. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance provisions governing civil service applications and certifications did not create any property interest for non-employee applicants and that the denial implicated no liberty interest, so no constitutional due process rights applied. The court reasoned that while the ordinance listed grounds for refusal to certify, it did not establish an entitlement to the position or require procedural safeguards for external applicants, and appeal rights were limited to current city employees under the relevant rules.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Burkman, the defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant after crashing his truck and exhibiting signs of intoxication at the scene. The trial court excluded the results of a breathalyzer test because police failed to observe the defendant continuously for twenty minutes as required by the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Burkman argued on appeal that 1977 statutory amendments barred conviction based solely on corroborating physical evidence such as witness observations of his unsteady gait, slurred speech, and failed field sobriety tests. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statutes expressly permit the introduction of other competent evidence on the issue of intoxication and do not require chemical test results. The court reasoned that the amendments preserved the admissibility of non-chemical evidence and allowed the jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the physical evidence presented.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a snowmobile accident in which thirteen-year-old Christopher Clark was injured after the machine accelerated uncontrollably and struck a tree, leading to the amputation of his leg. Clark and his father sued the manufacturer Leisure Vehicles, the distributor, and the dealer, alleging strict liability for a defective product and negligence in the snowmobile's design, particularly regarding the throttle, kill switch placement, and crush-zone features. A jury found no product defect, no negligence by the plaintiff, negligence by the father that was not causal, and negligence by the manufacturer that was not causal, resulting in a defense verdict. The court of appeals reversed in part and ordered a new trial limited to the negligence claim against Leisure Vehicles. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the special verdict question on whether the manufacturer's negligence caused the injuries was fatally defective because it failed to properly instruct the jury on the legal standard for causation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Rohl v. State, the defendant, convicted of third-degree murder and arson, sought postconviction relief under Wis. Stat. § 974.06, alleging that the state withheld exculpatory evidence regarding an unanalyzed flashlight from the crime scene and that a key witness had committed perjury. The trial court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding the exculpatory evidence claim conclusory and the perjury issue previously resolved on direct appeal. The court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in denying a hearing while the appeals court abused its discretion by ordering a new trial instead of remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the withheld evidence was material. The court reasoned that sec. 974.06 requires a hearing unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show no relief is warranted, and appellate courts should not make factual findings on undeveloped issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns the retrial of defendant James Ray Mendoza for two counts of first-degree murder in the shooting deaths of Milwaukee police officers. On retrial, the defendant moved to suppress two post-arrest statements (one about getting a haircut and one about a head injury) on grounds that they were obtained in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, including inadequate Miranda warnings and denial of counsel. The state sought to introduce the statements in its case-in-chief or for impeachment, and the trial court made rulings on their admissibility. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order on the statements and dismissed the defendant's cross-appeal, holding that the challenged orders were not appealable under the applicable statutes because they did not determine the action or prevent entry of a final judgment.

criminal lawprocedure