State v. Steven E. Rippentrop
2023 WI App 15 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pre-charging nonprosecution agreement entered into by a district attorney is binding and enforceable against the State if the defendant detrimentally relied on it, and the State fails to prove that the agreement clearly violates an established public policy, even if the agreement's conditions include the voluntary termination of parental rights.
Facts:
- In January 2015, law enforcement learned of alleged abuse by Debra and Steven Rippentrop (the Rippentrops) against their son, A.B., after A.B. ran away from home and reported that the Rippentrops had been physically restraining him constantly.
- The Rippentrops acknowledged restraining A.B. but claimed it was a desperate measure to prevent him from harming himself or others due to his violent behavior.
- Following A.B.'s reports, law enforcement referred the matter to Juneau County District Attorney Michael Solovey for potential criminal charges, while county corporation counsel simultaneously initiated a child in need of protection or services (CHIPS) case.
- A.B. ran away again in the summer of 2015, reported further abuse, and was removed from the Rippentrops' home, eventually being placed with relatives who later became his proposed guardians.
- On October 8, 2015, Solovey met with the Rippentrops and their attorney, Sullivan-Flock, and orally proposed a settlement: the State would not bring criminal charges against the Rippentrops if they cooperated with the county in the CHIPS case, ceased all contact with A.B., and voluntarily consented to the termination of their parental rights (TPR).
- Shortly after Solovey's offer, Sullivan-Flock informed Solovey that the Rippentrops accepted the nonprosecution agreement.
- The Rippentrops then began fulfilling the agreement's conditions, including withdrawing their challenge to the CHIPS allegations, cooperating with the county, ceasing communication with A.B. and his proposed guardians, and initiating the process for voluntary TPR.
- In May 2016, the Rippentrops signed petitions, drafted and filed on their behalf by the office of corporation counsel, requesting the termination of their parental rights to A.B., and in June 2016, they testified in a TPR hearing that their decision was voluntary and made as part of a 'global resolution' or 'plan' with the county.
Procedural Posture:
- In February 2019, the State filed criminal charges against Debra and Steven Rippentrop in circuit court.
- The Rippentrops filed a motion to dismiss the charges, arguing the State had breached an unwritten nonprosecution agreement and sought specific performance.
- The circuit court held a two-day evidentiary hearing to determine the existence and enforceability of the alleged nonprosecution agreement.
- The circuit court determined that a nonprosecution agreement existed, but initially declined to enforce it, ruling it violated public policy.
- One year later, the Rippentrops filed a second motion to dismiss, arguing for dismissal based on prosecutorial misconduct by the former district attorney.
- The circuit court granted the second motion, dismissing the criminal charges with prejudice as a remedy for what it deemed prosecutorial misconduct.
- The State, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the circuit court's order dismissing the criminal charges to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a pre-charging nonprosecution agreement, where a district attorney promises not to file criminal charges in exchange for a suspect's voluntary termination of parental rights, bind the State and remain enforceable against a subsequent prosecution, even without judicial oversight during its formation?
Opinions:
Majority - Graham, J.
Yes, a pre-charging nonprosecution agreement where a district attorney promises not to file criminal charges in exchange for a suspect's voluntary termination of parental rights does bind the State and is enforceable against a subsequent prosecution, even without judicial oversight during its formation, if the suspect detrimentally relied on it and the agreement does not violate public policy. The court concluded that District Attorney Solovey had the inherent discretionary authority to enter into a pre-charging nonprosecution agreement that binds the State, emphasizing that such agreements do not require prior judicial approval, distinguishing them from formal grants of immunity or post-charge plea agreements that involve judicial oversight. The court affirmed that any prosecutorial promise becomes binding if a party detrimentally relies upon it, and the Rippentrops clearly demonstrated such reliance by fulfilling the agreement's conditions, including cooperating with the county and voluntarily terminating their parental rights. The State failed to meet its high burden of proof to show that the agreement violated public policy. A contract is void on public policy grounds only in 'cases free from doubt' where enforcement interests are 'clearly outweighed' by policy violations. The court found that requiring voluntary termination of parental rights as a condition did not violate public policy because a parent’s decision to terminate rights is not necessarily involuntary simply because it is induced by a desire to avoid criminal charges; it represents a free choice between reasonable alternatives, similar to a plea agreement. Furthermore, the court determined there was no evidence of an explicit or implicit agreement to withhold information from the John Doe or TPR courts, noting that Solovey had informed other county officials of the agreement and the Rippentrops' attorney had alluded to it during the TPR hearing. The compelling public policy in favor of enforcing contracts, especially those based on detrimental reliance, including due process and fundamental fairness, outweighed the State's unsubstantiated public policy claims.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the enforceability of pre-charging nonprosecution agreements, highlighting the broad discretionary authority of district attorneys to bind the State. It clarifies that such agreements, even when involving fundamental rights like parental termination, do not automatically violate public policy if the underlying actions are voluntary and there's no explicit intent to conceal information from the courts. The ruling sets a high bar for the State to argue against the enforcement of such agreements on public policy grounds, requiring clear and undisputed evidence that enforcement would gravely harm public interests. This decision ensures that defendants who detrimentally rely on prosecutorial promises are protected by principles of fundamental fairness and due process.
