On Point blog, page 451 of 484
§ 940.11(2), Hiding Corpse — Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Scott Leason Badker, 2001 WI App 27, 240 Wis. 2d 460, 623 N.W.2d 142
For Badker: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for “hiding” corpse, § 940.11(2).
Holding: By dumping the deceased’s body into a 6-foot-deep, water-lined ditch in a secluded wildlife refuge, Badker satisfied the element of “hiding” under § 940.11(2).
§ 940.203(2), Battery — Threat to Judge
State v. Murle E. Perkins, 2000 WI App 137, 237 Wis. 2d 313, 614 N.W.2d 25, reversed on other grounds, State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, ¶2 n. 2
For Perkins: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a conditional threat to shoot a judge, made by a drunk and very depressed individual just before being taken into Ch. 51 emergency detention,
Exigency — Hot Pursuit — Entry of Residence — Arrest of 3rd Party
State v. Michael J. Kryzaniak/Sherry L. Kryzaniak, 2001 WI App 44
For Kryzaniak: Raymond G. Meyer II
Issue: Whether warrantless entry of a residence to arrest a third party was justified by the exigent circumstance of hot pursuit.
Holding:
¶18 … (T)here was no immediate or continuous pursuit of a suspect from the scene of a crime; thus, there was no hot pursuit and no exigent circumstances.… There was no pursuit here,
Exigency — Destruction of Evidence (Drugs) — Entry of Residence
State v. Edward Garrett, 2001 WI App 240, PFR filed
For Garrett: Michael P. Sessa
Issue: Whether warrantless entry of defendant’s apartment was justified under the exigent circumstances doctrine (risk that evidence — drugs — will be destroyed).
Holding: Warrantless entry of a residence may be justified where both probable cause and exigent circumstances are shown. Probable cause is conceded, leaving exigent circumstances — in this instance,
Exigent Circumstances – Destruction of Evidence (Drugs) — Entry of Residence
State v. Daniel Rodriguez, 2001 WI App 206, PFR filed 9/19/01
For Rodriguez: Diana Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether warrantless police entry of a residence was justified under the following circumstances: the location was a drug “hot spot”; before entry, undercover officers saw three people enter and quickly leave; drug arrests had been made at the home two months earlier; and, when the undercover officers approached defendant,
§ 943.38, Forgery – Postal Money Order
State v. Eileen M. Entringer, 2001 WI App 157
For Entringer: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, for purposes of the forgery statute, a person can falsely make a postal order by writing in the name of someone else as the payer.
Holding: Because forgery applies only to falsehoods that materially affect the document’s legal efficacy; and because “the money order was as good as cash,” listing another name as payer “had nothing to do with the genuineness of the execution of the money order” and “does not constitute ‘falsely making’ the money order.” ¶17.
Exigency — Community Caretaker — Underage Drinking
State v. Shane M. Ferguson, 2001 WI App 102
For Ferguson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the warrantless, forced police entry of a locked closet was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.
Holding:
¶12 After applying the Anderson test, we are satisfied that the police actions here qualified as ‘community caretaker.’ A search, to qualify as a community caretaker exception,
Theft of Identity, § 943.201(2) — Continuing Offense
State v. Alfredo Ramirez, 2001 WI App 158, PFR filed 7/11/01
For Ramirez: Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski
Issue: Whether § 943.201(2) creates a continuing offense such that, as applied to Ramirez, it did not violate the ex post facto clause even though the statute was promulgated after he commenced the activity that formed the basis for the charge.
Holding:
¶18. We hold that Ramirez obtained money in the form of wages,
Escape, § 946.42 — “Actual Custody”
State v. Deborah J. Zimmerman, 2001 WI App 238
For Zimmerman: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether someone in the custody of a probation or parole agent “is in actual custody” for purposes of the escape statute, § 946.42.
Holding:
¶5. To be guilty of escape, Zimmerman must be found to be in custody. Wis JI-Criminal 1773. The relevant language of the escape statute defines custody to include “without limitation actual custody of an institution …
§ 946.31(1)(a), Perjury – Elements – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64
For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a perjury conviction.
Holding: Proof of the elements of perjury — “(1) An oral statement while under oath; (2) The statement was false when made; (3) The defendant did not believe that the statement was true when he or she made it;