On Point blog, page 418 of 484
§ 940.03, Felony Murder — PTAC Allegation Superfluous
State v. Theodore J. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, PFR filed 1/21/03
For Krawczyk: John T. Wasielewski
Issue/Holding:
¶25. Krawczyk next argues that he was incorrectly charged as “a party to the crime” of felony murder and that this error also rendered his plea to that offense unknowing. We agree with Krawczyk that the State did not need to include the party-to-a-crime allegation in the felony murder charge.
Battery to, and Intimidation of, a Witness § 940.201(2)(a) and (b) — Elements
State v. Anthony M. Cotton, 2003 WI App 154
For Cotton: Timothy T. Kay
Issue/Holding:
¶19. Following the preliminary hearing and bindover, the State filed an information containing new charges pertaining to Cotton’s encounter with Paikowski-one count of battery or threat of battery to Paikowski and a further similar count regarding Paikowski’s family pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 940.201(2)(a) and (b). These charges require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant caused or threatened to cause bodily harm to the victim or victim’s family,
Community Caretaker – Automobile Towed for Safekeeping
State v. Timothy T. Clark, 2003 WI App 121
For Clark: Rodney Cubbie
Issue/Holding: Police tow of an automobile for “safekeeping,” even though “none of the typical public safety concerns illustrated by Opperman are at issue,” but rather on the ground that the vehicle was unlocked and therefore potentially at risk of theft, was unreasonable because effective alternatives to police seizure were available:
¶21.
Exigent Circumstances – Reported Crime in Progress – Warrantless Entry
State v. Scott Michael Harwood, 2003 WI App 215
For Harwood: Pat J. Schott, Margaret G. Zickuhr
Issue: Whether warrantless entry was supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances, as required by State v. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, ¶17, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, based upon a tenant’s reporting a break-in at another apartment within the complex.
Holding1 (probable cause):
¶15.
Escape, § 946.42 – “Actual Custody” – Dismissal of Charge but Parole Violation “Apprehension Request”
Meriter Hospital v. Dane County, 2003 WI App 248, affirmed, 2004 WI 145
Issue: Whether issuance of an “apprehension request” for alleged parole violation, following dismissal of pending charges upon jail inmate’s transfer to a hospital for treatment, leaves the person in “custody.”
Holding:
… We recently decided that a person did not have criminal status while hospitalized once a trial court stays confinement.
Escape, § 946.42 – “Actual Custody” – Effect of Stay of Probation Confinement Order
State v. Rick L. Edwards, 2003 WI App 221, PFR filed 10/24/03
For Edwards: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: A probationer whose order of jail confinement has been stayed during a period of hospitalization is not in custody for § 946.42 purposes and therefore may not be charged with escape for leaving the hospital and failing to return to jail. ¶21, and distinguishing,
Sexual Contact, § 948.02(2) — Definition of “Chest,” § 939.22(19) — Applicability to Male Victim
State v. Michael J. Forster, 2003 WI App 29, PFR filed 1/31/03
For Forster: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether designation of “breast,” in § 939.22(19), applies to males as well females, so that touching of a male breast may constitute sexual assault.
Holding: The statute plainly applies to the “intimate parts,” including “chest,” “of a human being,” and therefore applies to both genders.
Sexual Assault, § 948.02(2) — Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Michael J. Forster, 2003 WI App 29, PFR filed 1/31/03
For Forster: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The male victim’s testimony that the defendant “rubbed his nipple in a circular motion, while kissing [his] neck, for approximately twenty-five minutes,” established that the defendant touched an intimate part (chest) with illicit intent. ¶¶19-20.
§ 948.025, Repeated Sexual Assault — Remedy for Violation of Multiple Charging Proscription
State v. John S. Cooper, 2003 WI App 227, PFR filed 11/14/03
For Cooper: John A. Birdsall
Issue: Whether the trial court properly remedied violation of § 948.025(3) (impermissible to charge in same action both repeated-acts and individual acts of sexual assault involving same victim in same time period) by dismissing the repeated-acts charge instead of the individual-act charges.
Holding:
¶15. We hold that a court may reverse a conviction on the repeated acts charge under Wis.
§ 948.02(2), 2nd-Degree Sexual Assault (by Contact) — Elements – “Intentional” (Vs. “Knowing”) Contact
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The specifically prohibited “purpose” of sexual contact (i.e., sexual degradation, humiliation, arousal, or gratification) is not listed in § 948.02(2), but is nonetheless defined in § 948.01(5) as an element. ¶9 and id., n. 4, following State v. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, ¶50, 232 Wis.