Title: State v. John J. Watson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1995AP001067
State: Wisconsin
Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Date: June 29, 1999

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
Case No.: 
95-1067 
 
 
Complete Title 
of Case: 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
v. 
John J. Watson, 
 
Respondent-Respondent, 
 
 
CERTIFICATION FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
Opinion Filed: 
May 2, 1997 
Submitted on Briefs: 
 
Oral Argument: 
April 10, 1997 
 
 
Source of APPEAL 
 
COURT: 
Circuit 
 
COUNTY: 
Dane 
 
JUDGE: 
Angela B. Bartell 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Concurred: 
 
 
Dissented: 
 
 
Not Participating:  
Steinmetz, J., did not participate. 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
For the petitioner-appellant the cause was argued 
by Mary E. Burke, assistant attorney general, with whom on the 
briefs was Sally L. Wellman, assistant attorney general and James 
E. Doyle, attorney general. 
 
 
For the respondent-respondent there was a brief 
and oral argument by Richard D. Martin, state public defender. 
 
 
 
No. 95-1067 
 
 
1 
 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further editing 
and modification.  The final version will 
appear in the bound volume of the official 
reports. 
 
 
No. 95-1067 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN               :        
        
 
 
 
 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin, 
 
 
Petitioner-Appellant, 
 
 
v. 
 
John J. Watson, 
 
 
Respondent-Respondent. 
 
FILED 
 
MAY 2, 1997 
 
Marilyn L. Graves 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
Madison, WI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPEAL from an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County, 
Angela B. Bartell, Judge.  Order granting certification vacated 
and cause remanded to the Court of Appeals. 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The court is equally divided whether to 
affirm or reverse the order of the circuit court. Chief Justice 
Shirley S. Abrahamson, Justice William A. Bablitch and Justice 
Ann Walsh Bradley would affirm. Justice Jon P. Wilcox, Justice 
Janine P. Geske and Justice N. Patrick Crooks would reverse. 
Justice Donald W. Steinmetz did not participate.  
¶2 
When a certification or bypass results in a tie vote 
by this court, the better course of action is to vacate our 
decision to accept certification or bypass and remand the cause 
to the court of appeals. State v. Richard Knutson, Inc., 191 
Wis. 2d 395, 396-97, 528 N.W.2d 430 (1995) (remanding to court 
 
 
No. 95-1067 
 
 
2 
of appeals on a tie vote on certification); State v. Elam, 195 
Wis. 2d 683, 684-85, 538 N.W.2d 249 (1995) (restating rule; 
declining to remand to court of appeals on a tie vote on bypass 
because court of appeals had previously decided issue). 
¶3 
Accordingly, 
we 
vacate 
our 
order 
granting 
certification and remand to the court of appeals. 
 
 
 
No. 95-1067 
 
 
3 
 
1