On Point blog, page 283 of 489
Stun Belt – “Standing Order”
State v. Allen K. Umentum, 2011AP2622-CR. District 3, 5/1/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Umentum: Roberta A. Heckes; case activity
Under a local, Brown County “standing order,” all in-custody defendants appearing at jury trial were required, without particularized demonstration of need, to wear a non-visible stun belt. The courthouse had no screening checkpoints, and any defendant was entitled to relief from the order “for good cause shown.”
Mental Commitment – Finding of Dangerousness
Trempealeau County v. Charles O., 2011AP2794, District 3, 5/1/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Charles O.: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
The court rejects Charles O.’s argument that the evidence fell short of the “fifth-standard” showing of dangerousness, § 51.20(1)(a)2.e., State v. Dennis H., 2002 WI 104, ¶14, 255 Wis. 2d 359, 647 N.W.2d 851:
¶11 When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence,
TPR – Best Interests Determination
State v. Elizabeth M., 2012AP454, District 1, 5/1/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Elizabeth M.: Jeffrey W. Jensen; case activity
The court rejects Elizabeth M.’s argument that the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in favor of terminating of parental rights:
¶30 Basically, Elizabeth M. argues for a second chance. She testified that she now wants to raise John G., even though she: (1) is still on probation;
State v. Leilani E. Neumann, 2011AP1105-CR / State v. Dale R. Neumann, 2011AP1044-CR, District 3, 5/1/12
court of appeals certification, review granted, 6/13/12; for Leilani Neumann: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity; for Dale Neumann: Stephen L. Miller; case activity
Reckless Homicide and “Faith Healing” as Substitute for Medical Treatment
Convicted of reckless homicide, § 940.06(1), in the death of their daughter for failing to obtain medical treatment, the Neumanns raise various issues relating to interplay with the right to rely on prayer as treatment,
SVP Commitment – Jury Instructions: “Mental Disorder”
State v. Jonathan Phillips, 2010AP1490, District 4, 4/26/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Phillips: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; originally recommended for publication, changed per order 5/1/12
Although admittedly “inconsistent” in the way it defines “mental disorder,” when read “as a whole,” the pattern jury instruction for ch. 980 commitments (Wis JI—Criminal 2502) adequately conveys the required nexus between mental disorder and serious difficulty controlling behavior.
Court of Appeals Publication Orders, 4/12
court of appeals publication orders, 4/25/12
On Point posts from this list:
2012 WI App 42 La Crosse Tribune v. Circuit Court for La Crosse County
2012 WI App 46 State v. Lamont L. Travis
2012 WI App 47 State v. Matthew R. Steffes
2012 WI App 48 State v. Dennis R. Thiel
2012 WI App 49 Village of McFarland v.
Intentionally Mistreating / Shooting Animal, Resulting in Death, §§ 951.02 951.09 and 951.18(1): Intent not Element – Pellet Gun Is Weapon
State v. Shawn M. Klingelhoets, 2012 WI App 55 (recommended for publication); for Klingelhoets: Robert R. Henak; case activity
Intentionally Mistreating Animal, Resulting in Death, §§ 951.02 and 951.18(1) – Intent Element
Intentionally mistreating an animal, resulting in the animal’s death, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 951.02 and 951.18(1), doesn’t require intent to kill:
¶17 In sum, the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 951.18(1) does not require a defendant to have intentionally mutilated,
Shiffra-Green Procedure – Privileged Records – Remedy
State v. Samuel Curtis Johnson, III, 2011AP2864-CRAC, District 2, 4/18/12, WSC rev granted 11/14/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), supreme court review granted 11/14/12; for Johnson: Mark D. Richards, Michael F. Hart, Craig S. Powell, Geoffrey R. Misfeldt; case activity
Shiffra-Green Procedure – Privileged Records – Remedy Where Witness Declines Consent for in Camera Review
Johnson, charged with sexual assault of his stepdaughter T.S.,
Carrying Concealed Weapon, § 941.23 (2009-10) – Facially Constitutional; Constitutional, as Applied; Defense of Coercion, § 939.46(1)
State v. Clarence E. Brown, 2011AP2049-CR, District 1, 4/17/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Daniel R. Drigot; case activity
Carrying Concealed Weapon, § 941.23 (2009-10) – Facially Constitutional
The court upholds the constitutionality of the prior version of § 941.23, CCW, as not violating the right to bear arms (since-modified, to allow conceal-carry under specified circumstances, 2011 WI Act 35).
Felon-in-Possession, § 941.29: Constitutionality, Second Amendment
State v. Thomas M. Pocian, 2012 WI App 58 (recommended for publication); for Pocian: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell, Geoffrey R. Misfeldt; case activity
¶2 In 1986, Thomas M. Pocian was convicted of writing forged checks, a felony. Twenty-four years later, Pocian was prosecuted under Wis. Stat. § 941.29, which prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm. Relying on Heller and McDonald,