On Point blog, page 478 of 483
Enhancer — § 161.48(2) (1993-94), Drug Offender — Second or Subsequent Offense
State v. Frank Miles, 221 Wis. 2d 56, 584 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Miles: Craig W. Albee
Issue/Holding: Prior drug conviction is not element of crime of second or subsequent drug offense, § 161.48(2) (1993-94), which elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanor to felony possession:
Miles fails to recognize the distinction between the two types of penalty enhancers. The first type of penalty enhancer concerns facts or circumstances related to the underlying crime which alter the substantive nature of the charged offense.
Enhancers — § 961.49, Youth Center
Debra L. Van Riper, 222 Wis. 2d 197, 586 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Van Riper: Megan L. DeVore
Issue/Holding:
Because day care centers provide recreational and social services activities for children, they are a subset of “youth centers” and come within the definition of places listed in § 961.49(2), Stats. The protection of children, who congregate at day care centers, and are very vulnerable to the dangers associated with drug trafficking,
Enhancer — Persistent Repeater, § 939.62(2m)(b) — Equal Protection Challenge
State v. Damone J. Block, 222 Wis. 2d 586, 587 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Block: James M. Weber
Issue/Holding: The persistent repeater scheme survives equal protection challenge.
Block concedes that the persistent repeater statute deserves only the rational basis test. He argues that there are no reasonable or practical grounds for the manner in which the legislature has chosen serious crimes under § 939.62(2m),
Forfeiture — “Owner” of Subject Property, § 973.075(1)(b)2
State v. Walter A. Kirch, 222 Wis. 2d 598, 587 N.W.2d 919 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kirch: Timothy J. Gaskell
Issue/Holding:
The federal courts continue to consider possession, title, control and financial stake when determining ownership under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). … We therefore consider these factors when determining ownership for the purposes of § 973.075(1)(b)2, Stats.
While Sharon Kirch is listed on the Chevrolet Suburban’s title as the owner,
Expectation of Privacy — Hospital Emergency Room
State v. Melvin Thompson, 222 Wis. 2d 179, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Thompson: Phillip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding:
No published Wisconsin case has specifically addressed whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital emergency room or operating room. Accordingly, we analyze the question under the general approach for determining whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area where evidence is gathered.
Expectation of Privacy — Guest — Overstaying Welcome
Kelly L. McCray, 220 Wis. 2d 705, 583 N.W.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1998)
For McCray: Paul LaZotte
Issue/Holding: A guest who has exceeded his authorized stay loses any expectation of privacy in the residence
§ 940.10, Negligent Homicide — corporate liability
State v. Steenberg Homes, 223 Wis.2d 511, 589 N.W.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1998)
Holding: Corporations are subject to criminal liability under Wis. Stat. § 940.10
§ 940.20(1), Battery by Prisoner — Elements — Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Damone J. Block, 222 Wis. 2d 586, 587 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Block: James M. Weber
Issue/Holding:
Block’s next claim is that there was insufficient evidence to prove all of the elements of assault by a prisoner. Those elements are: (1) the defendant was a prisoner at the time of the offense, (2) the victim was an employee of the institution,
§ 940.32, Stalking – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 220 Wis. 2d 396, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Sveum: Robert T. Ruth
Issue/Holding:
Johnson received several hang-up telephone calls on April 16, 1996. Sveum told Walls that he made the calls, and Walls relayed this information to Johnson. When asked how the phone calls made her feel, Johnson testified: “Scared. It was happening again.” She also testified that she “was very afraid”
Theft from Person, § 943.20(3)(e) – Element of “From the Person” – Property Taken from Person’s Wheelchair
State v. Sylvester Hughes, 218 Wis. 2d 538, 582 N.W.2d 49 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Hughes: Michael H. Kopp
Issue/Holding:
Accordingly, precisely because persons who use wheelchairs, and those who do not, deserve equal treatment and protection under the laws prohibiting theft,9 we conclude that theft “from the person” encompasses the taking of property from the wheelchair of one sitting in the wheelchair at the time of the taking.10
10 In this case,