## Facts

- A former employee alleged that Ralph A. Kalal and Jackie Kalal misappropriated funds intended for her retirement account.
- The employee reported the allegations to police and the Dane County district attorney, who did not issue charges and indicated she could proceed by other lawful means.
- Relying on Wis. Stat. § 968.02(3), the employee asked a Dane County circuit judge to permit filing a criminal complaint on the ground that the district attorney had refused or was unavailable to proceed.
- The circuit judge conducted an ex parte proceeding, found probable cause, and authorized filing of the proposed criminal complaint, including appointment of a special prosecutor.
- The Kalals moved for reconsideration, arguing the statutory precondition for private filing (district attorney “refusal”) had not been met.
- The circuit judge concluded the Kalals lacked standing because § 968.02(3) specifies an ex parte procedure, but also addressed and rejected their merits arguments.
- The Kalals sought a supervisory writ from the court of appeals to halt further proceedings; the court of appeals denied relief.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the supervisory writ and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a person named as the subject of a proposed criminal complaint has standing to participate in, or seek reconsideration of, a circuit judge’s ex parte authorization under Wis. Stat. § 968.02(3).
2. Whether the court of appeals properly denied a supervisory writ seeking to stop proceedings stemming from a privately authorized criminal complaint.
3. What interpretive method governs construction of Wisconsin statutes, including the meaning of § 968.02(3) in context.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ denial of the supervisory writ.
- The Court held that § 968.02(3) proceedings are expressly ex parte and the subject of the proposed complaint has no right to participate or seek reconsideration of the authorization decision.
- The Court held the Kalals failed to satisfy the requirements for extraordinary supervisory-writ relief because they did not show a clear legal right to relief and had other avenues to protect their rights through ordinary criminal procedure.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation begins with the statutory text; if the meaning is plain, the inquiry ordinarily ends.
- Plain meaning is determined from text in context: the language used, its placement within the statutory scheme, and related provisions, considering scope and purpose as shown by the text.
- Wis. Stat. § 968.02(3) creates a narrow, judicially supervised exception to the district attorney’s charging authority and specifies an ex parte probable-cause process for authorizing a private complaint when the district attorney refuses or is unavailable.
- Because § 968.02(3) is ex parte, the accused has no statutory entitlement to be heard at the authorization stage and no right to reconsideration of the judge’s authorization decision.
- A supervisory writ is extraordinary and generally requires a clear legal right, a plain duty on the lower court, lack of an adequate alternative remedy, and the need to prevent grave hardship or a miscarriage of justice.

## Conclusion

The court held that authorization of a privately initiated criminal complaint under Wis. Stat. § 968.02(3) is an ex parte determination that the accused cannot contest at the authorization stage, and that the extraordinary remedy of a supervisory writ was unavailable because ordinary criminal-process remedies provide an adequate means to litigate defenses after a complaint is filed.


State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (Wis. 2004)