On Point blog, page 434 of 483
Attempted Second-degree Sexual Assault, §§ 939.32, 948.02(2) — Adult Posing as Child Online
State v. Thomas W. Grimm, 2002 WI App 242
For Grimm: Daniel W. Hildebrand
Issue/Holding: The rationale of State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65, 253 Wis. 2d 298, 646 N.W.2d 287, and State v. Koenck, 2001 WI App 93, 242 Wis. 2d 693, 626 N.W.2d 359, which permit enticement charges where a fictitious online “victim” is thought by the defendant to be a child,
§ 940.02 (1969), Second-Degree Intentional Murder — Sufficiency of Evidence (Battered Child)
State v. Arden C. Hirsch, 2002 WI App 8For Hirsch: Paul G. LaZotte, UW Law School, LAIP
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for second-degree murder, § 940.02 (1969).
Holding: Discrepancies between the parent’s version of what happened to the child and medical expert testimony as to what could not have, or what must have, happened to produce the injuries is crucial. ¶7. Persuasive medical evidence that the child died as result of sever injury,
§ 940.02, First Degree Reckless Homicide — Refusal to Instruct on, as Lesser Offense
State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue: Whether the first-degree intentional homicide defendant was entitled to an instruction on the lesser offense of first-degree reckless homicide.
Holding: Barreau must show a reasonable basis for negating intent to kill. The victim was killed by multiple blows to the head with a baseball bat.
§ 940.31(1)(b), Kidnapping — Sufficiency of Evidence — “Confinement”
State v. Charles J. Burroughs, 2002 WI App 18
For Burroughs: William F. Mross
Issue/Holding: The term “confine” has been defined under § 940.30 (false imprisonment), to mean compelled deprivation of free movement. ¶18. Therefore, the definition of “confine” in Wis JI-Criminal No. 1275 applies to kidnapping. ¶19. Applying that definition: physical force isn’t essential; nor is the victim required to undertake the risk presented by an opportunity to escape.
§ 940.19(5), Aggravated Battery — First-degree Reckless Endangering Safety, § 941.30(1), Not Lesser Included Offense of
State v. Russell L. Dibble, 2002 WI App 219, PFR filed 8/14/02
For Dibble: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: First-degree recklessly endangering safety, § 941.30(1), is not a lesser included offense of aggravated battery, § 940.19(5), under the “elements-only” test. Aggravated battery requires intent (to cause great bodily harm); endangering safety requires recklessness (while showing utter disregard for human life). It is this last —
§ 941.29(2), Felon in Possession of Firearm — Foreign Conviction as Felony
State v. Alan C. Campbell, 2002 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/16/02
For Campbell: Alexander D. Cossi
Issue: Whether Campbell’s conviction for forgery in another state is regarded as a felony for purposes of felon in possession, § 941.29.
Holding:
¶6. We agree with Campbell that the Ohio forgery statute is broader than Wisconsin’s, and that looking solely at the language of the Ohio statute would be insufficient to prove that Campbell was guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon.
§ 941.30(1), First-degree Reckless Endangering Safety – Not Lesser Included Offense of Aggravated Battery, § 940.19(5)
State v. Russell L. Dibble, 2002 WI App 219, PFR filed 8/14/02
For Dibble: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: First-degree recklessly endangering safety, § 941.30(1), is not a lesser included offense of aggravated battery, § 940.19(5), under the “elements-only” test. Aggravated battery requires intent (to cause great bodily harm); endangering safety requires recklessness (while showing utter disregard for human life). It is this last —
§ 943.02, Arson – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App, PFR filed 4/23/02
For Chu: Andrew Shaw
Issue/Holding: Evidence held sufficient, despite disagreement of experts on how fire was started; the jury was required to determine whether defendant intentionally started the fire, not specifically how it was set.
¶44 Chu may instead be arguing that the verdicts should be overturned because the State’s experts could not agree on the precise method of starting the fire,
Exigency – Domestic Violence – Entry of Residence
State v. Mark S. Mielke, 2002 WI App 251, PFR filed 10/3/02
For Mielke: David J. Van Lieshout
Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of a residence by the police, to investigate a domestic violence report concededly providing probable cause, was supported by exigent circumstances where the police could reasonably conclude that the safety of the reported victim was being compromised.
This terse little opinion (4+ pp) bids to do for DV cases what California v.
Exigency — Warrantless Entry to Investigate Suspected Burglary
State v. Dennis Lee Londo , State v. Richard John Vernon, 2002 WI App 89, PFR filed 4/2/02
For Londo: Michael B. Plaisted
For Vernon: Dennis P. Coffey, Seth P. Hartigan
Issue: Whether the police were justified in warrantless entry and search of a residence, during which they seized contraband, in order to investigate a reported burglary.
Holding: The police had probable cause,