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

The case involved Gary Thieme, who pleaded guilty to burglary and was placed on probation with conditions including restitution in an amount to be determined later. Funds were collected from his jail account toward restitution, but after his probation was revoked and he began serving a prison sentence, the trial court set a specific restitution amount exceeding the collected funds. Thieme moved to modify the restitution order and recover the funds, leading to appeals on whether the initial order authorized collection and whether the later specific order was valid post-revocation. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the December 1976 indeterminate restitution order was valid and authorized the collection of funds to be held in escrow, but the trial court lacked authority to fix the amount after probation revocation; it reversed the court of appeals and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the appropriate amount up to the funds already collected.

criminal lawprocedure

In Vanlue v. State, the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting evidence of the defendant's two prior burglary convictions, offered for the limited purpose of proving intent in a prosecution for possession of burglarious tools under Wis. Stat. sec. 943.12. The defendant had been arrested with items including a crowbar, gloves, a pillowcase, and a knife, and the state sought to use the prior convictions to show the required intent to use the tools for burglary. The court held that the evidence was admissible under sec. 904.04(2) because prior similar crimes were relevant to the intent element, and the trial court had properly instructed the jury on its limited use, reversing the court of appeals' contrary ruling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the due process procedures required for periodic reexaminations of commitments under Wisconsin's Sex Crimes Act, ch. 975, for individuals like petitioner Terry who had been committed as sex offenders following criminal convictions. After two remands from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reconsidered its earlier decisions in Terry I and Terry II, which had outlined specific procedural protections such as notice, disclosure of evidence, confrontation rights, and a neutral hearing body. The court determined that federal constitutional due process, as interpreted in Parham v. J.L. and Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal Complex, did not require all of the previously mandated procedures for these commitment reviews. The core reasoning focused on the distinctions between these administrative examinations and adversarial proceedings, drawing parallels to parole release decisions and juvenile mental health commitments addressed in the recent federal precedents.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurefederal power

This case concerned whether an automobile insurance policy covered injuries sustained by a state trooper who was stabbed by the insured driver during a traffic stop while inspecting the vehicle for alcohol. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, State Farm, finding no coverage under the policy terms. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the stabbing did not arise out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the vehicle because the act was not consistent with the inherent purpose of an automobile. The court reasoned that coverage requires a causal relationship to the vehicle's normal use, which was absent here as the incident involved a criminal assault unrelated to operating or loading the car.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved William G. Jessen, a former chief deputy sheriff convicted of twenty-six counts of misconduct in public office, who filed a motion for postconviction relief under Wisconsin Statute sec. 974.06 after completing probation, alleging that the state had suppressed exculpatory evidence. The circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that Jessen was not a prisoner in custody under sentence, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the denial, holding that sec. 974.06 explicitly limits relief to those in custody and that a writ of error coram nobis is the proper alternative remedy, though the court did not address whether Jessen qualified for it in this case.

criminal lawprocedure

Muller was convicted of murder after a trial in which his estranged wife's preliminary hearing testimony was admitted because she could not be located despite the state's efforts. On appeal, he challenged the admission of that evidence, the submission of the verdict, and certain jury instructions. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that instructions stating a presumption of intent from the natural and probable consequences of acts were improper because they could be read by jurors as shifting the burden of proof to the defendant or as conclusive, contrary to the requirement that the state prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Onalaska Electrical sued Schaller on an account stated for electrical work performed on various projects, claiming the parties agreed at a June or July 1975 meeting to settle the balance at $13,141.91 after adjustments to an initial ledger amount of $23,096.28. The trial court found that an agreement was reached based on testimony about the meeting, adjustments made, and subsequent statements sent to Schaller without objection or payment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment for Onalaska Electrical in the amount of $13,141.91 plus interest and costs, concluding that the trial court's findings were supported by credible evidence and that retention of an account statement without timely objection implies assent to its correctness.

business & regulatory

This case concerned whether former Shopko executive Compton was entitled to a bonus under the company's Executive Bonus Plan after his discharge for good cause on December 27, 1974. The plan required participants to be employed at the close of the fiscal year on February 22, 1975, to qualify for payment, a condition that had been communicated to Compton and reduced to writing in June 1974. The trial court found Compton remained an employee on the fiscal year-end date due to the company's handling of his severance pay and thus awarded him the bonus. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the essential facts were undisputed and the trial court's determination amounted to a reviewable conclusion of law; it held that Compton's employment had ended on the discharge date, rendering him ineligible under the plan's explicit terms.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a petition by Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. to the Public Service Commission alleging that certain winter residential electric rates of two utilities were discriminatory and unreasonable because they promoted electricity use for space heating and contributed to higher winter peak demand, in violation of utility regulation statutes. The PSC denied the petition, concluding that the issues had been or could be addressed in ongoing or recent rate proceedings and that further investigation would be duplicative. The circuit court dismissed the petition for judicial review, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the PSC's order was not an 'administrative decision' reviewable under secs. 227.15 and 227.16 because it was a discretionary denial of an investigative request that lacked a contested proceeding, record, or findings of fact as required for review. The court reasoned that the statutory review provision envisions final agency orders based on the necessary procedural elements rather than preliminary or discretionary actions.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a claim by Emaline and Donald Johnson against American Family Mutual Insurance Company for negligence and bad faith in handling an insurance claim arising from multiple auto accidents in 1964. The Johnsons, through an assignment from the insured Gladys Heintz, alleged improper investigation and failure to settle within policy limits. The court affirmed the judgment for the insurer, reasoning that American Family's assessments of liability and damages were reasonable based on medical evidence showing no link between the 1969 fall and the accidents, and that settlement decisions were justified given the expected verdict amounts relative to policy limits. The court also upheld the exclusion of certain prior judicial comments as hearsay not fitting exceptions.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over payment for construction work on a swimming pool enclosure at a Wisconsin motor lodge project. Klein-Dickert Oshkosh completed the work under a subcontract but was not paid after the general contractor defaulted, leading it to sue Frontier Mortgage Corporation on the basis of an alleged guarantee of payment. The trial court found that Frontier had guaranteed the contract and awarded damages, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that credible evidence, including letters from Frontier acknowledging the guarantee and detailing payment terms, along with the parties' communications and circumstances showing reliance, supported the trial court's findings. Those findings were not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, making reversal unwarranted.

business & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between the Milwaukee Board of School Directors and the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association over a 1974 collective bargaining agreement covering regular teaching personnel. The union grieved the Board's use of substitute teachers to fill regular positions that should have been covered by the contract's recognition clause, and an arbitrator sustained the grievance, ordering the Board to cease the practice, appoint substitutes retroactively as regular teachers, and provide back pay and benefits under both the 1974 contract and successor agreements. The circuit court confirmed the award, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by interpreting and awarding remedies under post-1974 contracts, as his jurisdiction derived solely from the 1974 agreement under which the grievance arose, though the award could stand as to violations of that specific contract.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a commercial lease dispute in which the tenant abandoned the premises after 19 years, citing alleged breaches of the quiet enjoyment covenant due to neighborhood decline and repeated water damage from upper-floor tenants, and the landlord sued for unpaid rent, taxes, repair costs, and lost future rent. The trial court awarded the landlords over $100,000 in damages, including for breach of lease and prejudgment interest on certain items. The appellate court reversed the award of damages for lost future rent, holding that the landlords had accepted the tenant's surrender and thereby terminated the lease, but affirmed the awards for repair costs, unpaid taxes, and short-term rent loss (with interest), finding those amounts were ascertainable prior to judgment. The core reasoning focused on the legal effect of surrender acceptance and the standards for awarding prejudgment interest on liquidated or determinable damages.

propertyprocedure

In Elias v. State, the defendant was charged with multiple counts of drug delivery and possession, along with repeater allegations, and entered a guilty plea to one count of delivering percodan pursuant to a plea agreement under which the state dismissed the remaining charges. The trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of up to six years after a presentencing investigation and hearing. On appeal, the defendant argued that the sentencing court abused its discretion by considering the dismissed charges, particularly a heroin possession count, which he claimed were improper factors. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that a sentencing court may properly consider a defendant's character and behavioral pattern, including facts underlying dismissed charges, as long as the factors are relevant and the plea agreement does not limit the court's discretion to review such information. The court found no evidence that the trial judge relied on irrelevant or improper considerations in imposing the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure