On Point: A. Construction

In a series of recent cases, the supreme court has joined what it terms “the ‘new federalism’ movement,” State v. Knapp (II), 2005 WI 127, ¶84 and id., n. 20 (Crooks, J., conc. w/ majority support of 4 votes), which refers to a tendency to look first to the state constitution and assign greater rights than the Supreme Court to parallel provisions in the federal constitution. Those cases are listed here:

• State v.

State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9
For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: (Concurrence of Chief Justice, but one that marshals majority of votes, hence represents holding:)

¶66      The powers of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are defined in several ways and have diverse origins.  Some are explicitly set forth in Article VII,

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80
For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶15 n. 3:

Recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court construed article I, § 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution as providing greater protection against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, State v.

State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250
For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne

Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4:

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ….” Article I, section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that “no person for the same offense may be put twice in jeopardy of punishment ….” Two recent decisions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have concluded that certain provisions of the state constitution provide greater protections than analogous provisions of the federal constitution.

Patrick G. Schilling v. State Crime Victims Rights Board, 2005 WI 17, on certification

Issue/Holding: The first sentence of Art. I, § 9m (“dignity” provision) is a statement of purpose, articulating the importance of crime victims’ rights, but is not self-executing. ¶¶13-26.

General methodology of interpreting constitutional provision – plain meaning of words; constitutional debates; earliest legislative implementation – recited, ¶16. In the present instance,

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue/Holding:

¶11. A defendant’s right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Ct. App. 1994). A defendant may, however, waive the right to testify. State v. Wilson, 179 Wis. 2d 660,

State v. Louis D. Thomas, 2004 WI App 115, PFR filed 6/17/04
For Thomas: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: Wis. Const. art. I, § 25 (“right to keep and bear arms”) did not effectively repeal § 941.29 (felon in possession). ¶¶7-12.

Issue/Holding: § 941.29 is neither vague, ¶¶14-18, nor overbroad, ¶¶19-23.

Issue/Holding: § 941.29 doesn’t violate equal protection, ¶¶24-29. (Comparative classes: felons / misdemeanants;

State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate 

Issue: Whether § 941.23 is facially unconstitutional as impermissibly infringing on the right to bear arms.

Holding: The constitutional right of an individual to bear arms, Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25, being “fundamental” in nature, ¶20, the question is whether § 941.23 “reasonably” restricts that right, which in turn requires balancing the interests involved.

State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate 

Issue: Whether § 941.23 is unconstitutional as applied to Cole.

Holding:

¶48. Cole claims that he was carrying the weapons because he had been “the victim of a brutal beating when he was younger and he did not feel safe in the neighborhood.” (Pet’r Br. at 3.) He did not assert that he had the weapons in the car in response to any specific or imminent threat.

State v. Charles Chvala, 2003 WI App 257, affirmed, 2005 WI 30
For Chvala: Lawton & Cates

Issue/Holding:

¶23. Chvala asserts that Wisconsin courts do not rely on decisions from other states to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution, and he asks that we not consider the above cases in reaching our decision. We recognize that none are binding, but there is no reason we may not consider how courts of other jurisdictions have decided the same or similar issues.