Contact: Tom Sheehan, Public Information Officer, (608) 261-6640

Madison, Wis. (Feb. 2, 2021) – The Wisconsin Supreme Court has voted to accept five new cases, and the Court acted to deny review in a number of other cases. The case numbers, counties of origin and the issues presented in granted cases are listed below. More information about pending appellate cases can be found on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Access website. Published Court of Appeals opinions can be found here, and the status of pending Supreme Court cases can be found here.

2018AP1476-CR                                State v. Dodson

Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review

Court of Appeals:  District I

Circuit Court:  Milwaukee County, Judge M. Joseph Donald and Judge Carolina Stark, affirmed

Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Octavia W. Dodson, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner

Issue presented:

Did the sentencing court violate Mr. Dodson’s Second Amendment right by considering his status as a lawful gun owner an aggravating factor at sentencing?

2019AP691-CR                                  State v. Lira


Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review

Court of Appeals:  District I

Circuit Court:  Milwaukee County, Judge Frederick C. Rosa, affirmed in part, reversed in part

Long caption: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner v. Cesar Antonio Lira, Defendant-Appellant

Issues presented:

  1. Should Lira’s award of credit be reversed because, under the terms of Wis. Stat. § 973.155, Lira’s Oklahoma custody was not connected to the conduct for which he was sentenced in Wisconsin?
  2. Should State v. Brown, 2006 WI App 41, 289 Wis. 2d 823, 711 N.W.2d 708, be overruled because it misinterpreted the interplay between Wis. Stat. §§ 973.15(5) and 973.155?
  3. Should this award of credit to Lira be vacated because it is contrary to Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1)(a) and case law interpreting the statute?

2019AP1565-CR                                State v. Mulhern

Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review

Court of Appeals:  District III

Circuit Court:  Pierce County, Judge Joseph D. Boles, reversed

Long caption:  State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner v. Ryan Hugh Mulhern Defendant-Appellant

Issues presented:

  1. The manifest purpose of Wisconsin’s rape shield statute is to bar evidence that is generally irrelevant and that otherwise operates to harass or humiliate sexual assault victims or to prevent them from reporting these crimes and participating in these prosecutions.

Given that purpose, must the rape shield bar relevant evidence of the victim’s lack of sexual conduct that the victim offers to corroborate her claim of sexual assault, that is not prejudicial to her or to the defendant, and that causes none of the harms that the statute protects against?

  1. Here, the State elicited testimony from the victim that she did not have sex the week before defendant-appellant Ryan Mulhern sexually assaulted her. The State introduced that statement to corroborate the victim’s claims by establishing that Mulhern was the probable source of unidentified DNA found in her vagina the day after the assault.

Assuming that the rape shield law barred the victim’s statement, is the error harmless, given that the admitted evidence was relevant, non-prejudicial, and admitted in violation of a statute designed to protect victims?

2019AP1365               Duncan v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc.

Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review

Court of Appeals:  District IV

Circuit Court:  Dane County, Judge Stephen E. Ehlke, reversed

Long caption:  Danelle Duncan, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Asset Recovery Specialists, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Greg Strandlie, Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners 

 Issues presented:

  1. Was the repossession of Duncan’s vehicle from the ground floor, open door, multivehicle parking garage and separate parking space proper under Wis. Stat. § 425.206(2)(b), based on the circuit court’s determination that the parking garage was not a “dwelling used by Duncan as a residence?”
  2. Was the Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Wis. Stat. § 425.107 “Unconscionable Behavior” claim on Summary Judgment by the circuit court proper?
  3. Whether a plaintiff may bring an affirmative claim under Wis. Stat. § 425.107, or whether that section is limited to being raised only defensively in response to a suit by a merchant or creditor?

2018AP2319-CR                                State v. Garcia

 Supreme Court case type:  Petition for Review

Court of Appeals:  District II

Circuit Court:  Racine County, Judge Michael J. Piontek, reversed

Long caption:  State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner v. Manuel Garcia, Defendant-Appellant

Issue presented:

Did the Court of Appeals err when it reversed Garcia’s conviction based on the legal conclusion that the introduction at trial of inculpatory statements Garcia made to police violated his rights under Miranda[1] because Garcia himself did not testify, despite the fact that the circuit court admitted the statements under the “opening the door” exception, elucidated by this Court in Brecht,[2] and not the impeachment exception discussed in Harris?[3]

Review denied: The Supreme Court denied review in the following cases. As the state’s law-developing court, the Supreme Court exercises its discretion to select for review only those cases that fit certain statutory criteria (see Wis. Stat. § 809.62). Except where indicated, these cases came to the Court via petition for review by the party who lost in the lower court:


19AP1124-CR                        State v. Murphy


19AP654-CR                          State v. Parks 


10AP2339-CRNM/                 State v. Cowins


19AP902-CR                          State v. Conley

19AP1503-CR                        State v. Cuesta

19AP1553                               Kalscheuer v. Kalscheuer

19AP2036                               Wahoske v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

19AP2270-CR                        State v. Swapsy 

Fond du Lac

19AP587                                 State v. Brantner

19AP680-CR                          State v. Kienbaum

20AP958-CRNM                    State v. Neumann 


19AP548-CR                          State v. Henyar

19AP757-CR                          State v. Blackshear

20AP607-CR                          State v. Cursey

La Crosse

19AP1730-CR                        State v.  Yang 


18AP999-CR                          State v. Bucki


19AP707-CR                          State v. Burns

19AP846                                 Kosobucki v. Kosobucki 


20AP942-W                            Nichols v. Circuit Court for Marinette County


18AP2285-CR                        State v. Scarbrough

19AP667                                 Doe v. Foley

Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissent.


19AP768                                 State v. Taylor

Chief Justice Patience Drake Roggensack did not participate. 

19AP1123-CR                        State v. Maghfour

19AP1798-CR                        State v. Tolbert

19AP2127-CR                        State v. Bunn

19AP2228                               State v. M.E.

20AP1057                               State v. J.M.-W. 

20AP1194                               State v. C.A.A.

20AP1278-W                          Newson v. Hepp

20AP1947-W                          Holloway v. Hermans 


18AP672                                 Lauer v. Lauer


19AP94                                   Sierra v. Boston

19AP1178-CR                        State v. Brown


18AP2369-CR                        State v. Mao

St. Croix

19AP482-CRNM                    State v. Rasmussen


19AP2027-CR                        State v. Risch


18AP1752-CR                        State v. Doege

21AP56-W                              Stoller v. Court of Appeals, District II


18AP1897                               State v. Geyser

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley and Justice Rebecca Frank Dallet dissent.  Justice Brian Hagedorn did not participate.

19AP1254-CR                        State v. Stetina

19AP1371-CR                        State v. Krull

20AP1979-W                          Washington v. Buesgen


19AP1744-CRNM/                 State v. Petty


[1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

[2] State v. Brecht, 143 Wis. 2d 297, 421 N.W.2d 96 (1988)

[3] Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email