State v. Clinton J. Adams

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION NOTICE
DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
November 26, 2025
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
Samuel A. Christensen petition to review an adverse decision by the
Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2025AP1179-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2020CM306

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT II

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V.

CLINTON J. ADAMS,

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Manitowoc
County: JERILYN M. DIETZ, Judge. Affirmed.

¶1 LAZAR, J.1 Clinton J. Adams appeals from his judgment of
conviction for the misdemeanor of knowingly violating a domestic abuse

1
This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(f) (2023-24).
All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2023-24 version.
No. 2025AP1179-CR

injunction, as a repeater, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 813.12(4), (8)(a), and
939.62(1)(a). He argues that the trial evidence was insufficient to support a
conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. This court affirms, concluding that the
evidence at trial was sufficient to support Adams’s conviction.

¶2 At trial, Hailey2 testified that she and Adams were in a relationship
for approximately eleven years before Hailey received an order of protection
against Adams in Manitowoc County on November 14, 2019, effective until
November 14, 2029. The order of protection required that Adams avoid
contacting Hailey and causing any person other than one of their attorneys or a law
enforcement officer to contact Hailey, unless Hailey consents in writing, where
“[c]ontact includes: contact … by electronic communication or device ….”
(Emphasis omitted.)

¶3 Hailey further testified that while she and her daughter were on
vacation during March 2020, Hailey’s daughter received a Facebook message
from Clinton John Adams that read, “I need to speak with your mom asap[.]”
Hailey did not provide her consent for Adams to contact her via her daughter.
Upon returning from vacation, Hailey reported the contact attempt to the Kiel
Police Department and provided law enforcement with a screenshot of the
message.

¶4 Hailey’s daughter testified and confirmed that she was on vacation
with her mother when she received the Facebook message, took a screenshot of it,

2
Pursuant to the policy underlying WIS. STAT. RULE 809.86, we use a pseudonym for
the victim.

2
No. 2025AP1179-CR

and sent it to her mother. She indicated she knew the message came from Adams
because “the name was Clinton J[ohn] Adams.”

¶5 A representative from the clerk of circuit court testified regarding
the authenticity of the injunction and proof of service.

¶6 Officer Joseph Van Oss of the Kiel Police Department testified that
he had been an officer for almost 4 years, he is trained in multiple different
specialties, and he receives 24 hours of training every year. He testified that he
was familiar with Facebook, knows that a user has to log in, knows that Facebook
accounts are password protected, knows that Facebook accounts are “associated
with individual[] emails[,]” and knows that “Facebook profiles and messages list
the given names on those profiles[.]” He testified that he was the investigator on
the case, and that Hailey provided him with a screenshot of the message. After
reviewing the underlying injunction, he referred a “charge of violating a no
contact” to the district attorney’s office.

¶7 The jury returned a verdict of guilty. At sentencing on October 23,
2023, the trial court ordered Adams to serve six months in the Manitowoc County
Jail with Huber work release privileges.

¶8 An appellate court upholds a jury’s verdict “unless the evidence,
viewed most favorably to the State and to the conviction, is so insufficient as a
matter of law that no reasonable trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” State v. Doss, 2008 WI 93, ¶21, 312 Wis. 2d 570, 754 N.W.2d
150 (citing State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493, 501, 451 N.W.2d 752 (1990)).

¶9 “[A] defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence bears a
heavy burden to show the evidence could not reasonably have supported a finding

3
No. 2025AP1179-CR

of guilt.” State v. Beamon, 2013 WI 47, ¶21, 347 Wis. 2d 559, 830 N.W.2d 681.
An appellate court’s review is “very narrow[,]” and the court must “give great
deference to the determination of the trier of fact.” State v Hayes, 2004 WI 80,
¶57, 273 Wis. 2d 1, 681 N.W.2d 203 (citing Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d at 507).
“[T]he trier of fact is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and alone is
charged with the duty of weighing the evidence.” State v. Below, 2011 WI App
64, ¶4, 333 Wis. 2d 690, 799 N.W.2d 95.

¶10 “If any possibility exists that the trier of fact could have drawn the
appropriate inferences from the evidence adduced at trial to find the requisite guilt,
an appellate court may not overturn a verdict even if it believes the trier of fact
should not have found guilt based on the evidence before it.” Poellinger, 153
Wis. 2d at 507. “[I]f more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the
evidence, we must adopt the inference that supports the verdict.” State v. Mertes,
2008 WI App 179, ¶10, 315 Wis. 2d 756, 762 N.W.2d 813 (citing Poellinger, 153
Wis. 2d at 506-07). Whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, the
sufficiency of the evidence test is the same. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d at 501.

¶11 To prove Adams was guilty of violating an injunction, the jury had
to find that: (1) an injunction was issued against Adams, (2) Adams committed an
act that violated the terms of the injunction, and (3) Adams knew that the
injunction had been issued and knew that his acts violated its terms.

¶12 Adams does not dispute that there was an injunction issued against
him of which he was knowledgeable and that one of the terms of the injunction is
no third-party contact with Hailey. He disputes that the jury had sufficient
evidence to support its finding that Adams committed the act of sending the
Facebook message to Hailey’s daughter that violated the terms of the injunction.

4
No. 2025AP1179-CR

¶13 The State presented evidence from which a jury could reasonably
infer that Adams sent Hailey’s daughter the Facebook message in an attempt to
make contact with Hailey. The jury heard testimony from Hailey that she saw the
screenshot of a Facebook message from “Clinton John Adams” reading “I need to
speak with your mom asap[.]” The jury heard from Hailey’s daughter, who
confirmed that she received the Facebook message, took a screenshot of it, and
sent it to her mother. The jury heard from Officer Van Oss, who investigated
Hailey’s complaint. He testified that he is familiar with Facebook, that he knows
that a user has to log into a password-protected Facebook account that is
associated with the individual’s email address, and that he knows that Facebook
profiles are identifiable by names. From these facts, a jury could reasonably
conclude that Adams sent the Facebook message to Hailey’s daughter in an
attempt to contact Hailey.

¶14 At trial, Adams questioned Officer Van Oss to ascertain whether in
his investigation, Van Oss determined the authenticity of the Facebook message.
While Van Oss testified that he did not contact Facebook to verify authenticity, the
inquiry did not elicit any reason to suspect that the Facebook message was not
genuine, or that it was sent by someone other than Adams. Adams had the
opportunity to rebut the facts that supported the State’s case. Adams offered no
contrary evidence for the jury to consider as an alternative to the reasonable
inference that the Facebook message sent by “Clinton John Adams” to Hailey’s
daughter requesting to speak to her mother originated from Adams. Adams
generally reasons that “[i]n the era of spam emails and spam messaging, phishing
emails and phishing messaging, … the jury is being asked to guess about the
source of the message.” In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Adams

5
No. 2025AP1179-CR

does not meet his “burden to show the evidence could not reasonably have
supported a finding of guilt.” Beamon, 347 Wis. 2d 559, ¶21.

¶15 This court cannot conclude that the evidence is so insufficient as a
matter of law that no reasonable trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury,
acting reasonably, to find Adams guilty of violating the injunction.

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)4.

6