The prosecution spent months addressing whether Ramone Waupoose could stand trial before a judge separately decided he should remain in adult court.
GREEN BAY, Wis. — Before a Wisconsin judge could decide whether Ramone Waupoose should face an attempted homicide charge in juvenile or adult court, the criminal case had to answer an earlier question: whether the teenager was competent to participate in the proceedings at all.
That competency issue and the later jurisdiction fight created two distinct legal stages in a case that began with an alleged attack at a Suamico home in July 2025. Waupoose, now 17, was initially found not competent to proceed after his attorney raised concerns soon after charges were filed. Following treatment and further evaluation, he was found competent in March 2026. His attorneys then pursued a reverse waiver, asking that the prosecution be moved from adult criminal court to the juvenile system. Judge Beau Liegeois ultimately rejected that request in September, leaving Waupoose in adult court on charges of attempted first-degree intentional homicide with use of a dangerous weapon and first-degree reckless injury with use of a dangerous weapon.
Competency and jurisdiction address different questions, and neither determines guilt. Competency concerns whether a defendant understands the proceedings and can assist with a defense. Shortly after Waupoose was charged in August 2025, his lawyer raised doubts about his ability to do so. A medical examiner subsequently found him not competent, but the court ordered another report after determining that an evaluation prepared around the juvenile system needed to account for the fact that the case was in adult court. Judge Tammy Jo Hock said at the time that an updated assessment was needed so the court could consider appropriate services under the correct system. Proceedings were placed on hold while the competency issue was addressed.
By March 2026, the defense did not object to a new report finding Waupoose competent to proceed. The case then moved back into the ordinary pretrial process. A preliminary hearing followed, and the court found enough evidence for the prosecution to continue. That finding did not establish guilt; preliminary proceedings generally determine whether a case has sufficient legal basis to move forward. With competency no longer preventing prosecution, Waupoose’s lawyers raised a different challenge. They asked the adult court to transfer jurisdiction to juvenile court through Wisconsin’s reverse-waiver procedure.
The reason the defense needed a reverse waiver goes back to Waupoose’s age and the charge filed against him. He was 16 at the time of the alleged July 16, 2025, attack. Wisconsin law gives adult criminal courts original jurisdiction over juveniles accused of certain serious homicide-related offenses, including attempted first-degree intentional homicide. A juvenile in that situation can seek transfer back to juvenile court, but the transfer is not automatic. State law places the burden on the juvenile to show that the required factors favor moving the case, including questions involving adequate treatment, the seriousness of the alleged crime and deterrence.
The timing became more complicated when Waupoose approached his 17th birthday. He turned 17 on May 2, 2026, while his request was pending. Wisconsin generally treats a 17-year-old as an adult for criminal prosecution, prompting discussion about whether the reverse-waiver effort could continue. Liegeois ruled that the defense could still pursue the request because Waupoose had been younger when the alleged offense occurred and some juvenile services remained potentially available. That decision did not mean the transfer would be granted. It preserved the opportunity for the defense to present evidence supporting one.
At the eventual reverse-waiver hearing, the defense focused on treatment. Psychologist Greg Van Rybroek testified that Waupoose would be better served by the structure and programs available in juvenile facilities and that appropriate treatment there could make him less likely to offend again. He also said that moving the case to juvenile court would not unduly minimize the seriousness of the alleged offense. Nicole Waupoose, the defendant’s mother and the person prosecutors identify as the victim, supported the transfer as well. She told the court she believed her son would receive the best treatment in the juvenile system.
Prosecutors argued that the legal requirements for transfer had not been met. Assistant District Attorney Kim Hardtke noted that adult court remained the presumptive forum and said treatment options were available in the adult system. Liegeois focused on the duration of juvenile treatment discussed during testimony. Reporting from the hearing said the judge viewed a roughly five-year period as inadequate when measured against both the seriousness of the alleged offense and Waupoose’s longer-term treatment needs. Van Rybroek had indicated those needs could continue beyond the time available through juvenile services. That conclusion was enough to keep jurisdiction in adult criminal court.
The underlying accusations date to the early morning of July 16, 2025. According to the criminal complaint, Nicole Waupoose told Brown County sheriff’s investigators that Ramone had recently run away and had been returned home by authorities. She said he was angry about being brought back and also upset that she had deleted rap videos from his YouTube account while dealing with parental controls. She described his behavior as becoming increasingly concerning over the following period. Because she feared he might hurt himself, she told investigators she removed knives, sharp utensils and several tools from the house and locked them in her vehicle.
The complaint says Nicole Waupoose monitored cameras in the home and saw her son searching around the garage. She later believed he located a large pair of pruning shears there. When the electricity began switching off, she went toward the power box, where prosecutors allege Ramone attacked her with the shears. She told investigators she defended herself with a garbage can and escaped with her younger son. Authorities said she suffered injuries to her head, face, arms and back and later required staples and stitches. Investigators reported finding pruning shears roughly 2 feet long in the house and blood nearby. The allegations have not been proven at trial.
Investigators also reported finding messages on Waupoose’s phone that they say add evidence of planning and intent. According to the criminal complaint, the communications contained threats involving his mother, younger brother and an ex-girlfriend and included references to killing family members and recording an attack. Prosecutors may rely on those messages as the case advances, but their meaning and evidentiary weight have not yet been finally determined in court. Waupoose remains presumed innocent, and the state bears the burden of proving the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt if the case proceeds to trial.
The September jurisdiction ruling therefore marked the end of one procedural dispute, not the criminal case itself. Over the course of roughly a year, Waupoose’s case moved from an initial competency concern to treatment, a finding that he could proceed, a preliminary hearing, a debate over the effect of his 17th birthday and finally a contested reverse-waiver hearing. Each stage addressed whether and where the prosecution could continue rather than whether the allegations were true. The latest ruling means future proceedings take place under adult criminal jurisdiction unless a later order changes the posture of the case.
Oct. 27 will be the date of a status conference. No later public report establishing a verdict, plea or final disposition was located among the sources reviewed through Nov. 6. The case therefore remains pending in the reporting record reviewed for this article, with Waupoose continuing to face the adult charges and the underlying allegations still unproven.
Author note: Last updated Nov. 6, 2026.