On Point blog, page 480 of 483
Possession of Controlled Substance – Sufficiency of Evidence – Presence of Substance in System
State v. John L. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Griffin: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
Like other jurisdictions, to be found guilty of possession of a controlled substance in Wisconsin, the defendant must have had the substance under his or her control and must have knowingly possessed the substance. See Wis J I-Criminal 920; Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d at 508,
Evidence of Unemployment and Large Sum of Money on Person — Admissibility: Simple Possession
State v. John L. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Griffin: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
Griffin was charged with drug possession. In State v. Pozo, 198 Wis.2d 705, 714, 544 N.W.2d 228, 232 (Ct. App. 1995), we stated that although a large amount of cash on an unemployed defendant may be relevant to whether the defendant is selling drugs,
Attempted Fraudulent Acquistion of Controlled Substance, § 961.43(1) — Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Linda M. Henthorn, 218 Wis. 2d 526, 581 N.W.2d 544 Ct. App. 1998)
For Henthorn: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
Viewing the facts most favorable to the prosecution requires us to assume that, despite her denial, Henthorn in fact altered the prescription, changing the refill number from “1” to “11.” She then presented the prescription to the pharmacist but took no further action.
Plea-Withdrawal – Post-sentencing — Procedure — Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
State v. Robert J. Nichelson, 220 Wis. 2d 214, 582 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Nichelson: Paul M. Moldenhauer
Issue/Holding: fn. 8:
The State’s right to question a defendant’s attorney when the defendant alleges that the attorney failed to properly inform him or her before entering a plea is established in State v. Van Camp, 213 Wis.2d 131, 145, 569 N.W.2d 577,
Plea-Withdrawal – Post-sentencing – Procedure – “Negative Inference” from Defendant’s Testimony Insufficient
State v. Robert J. Nichelson, 220 Wis. 2d 214, 582 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Nichelson: Paul M. Moldenhauer
Issue/Holding:
It therefore appears to be an issue of first impression in Wisconsin whether a court can accept a negative inference to establish proof by clear and convincing evidence. Under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, a negative inference is sufficient only if there is independent support in the evidence.
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing — Procedure — Reliance on Counsel’s Expertise to Infer Understanding of Elements
State v. Robert J. Nichelson, 220 Wis. 2d 214, 582 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Nichelson: Paul M. Moldenhauer
Issue/Holding:
The State concedes that the discussion between Willett and Nichelson did not include a “complete catalogue of the elements of the offense.” It also appears to concede that, “examined in a vacuum, the above colloquy [between Willett and Nichelson] would not satisfy the [constitutional] requirements.”
Domestic Abuse, § 813.12(1) — “Household Member”
Annette Petrowsky v. Brad Krause, 223 Wis. 2d 32, 588 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Krause: Russell D. Bohach
For Petrowsky: Thomas McAdams, Pro Bono Project
Issue/Holding:
The issue on appeal is who constitutes a “household member” under the domestic abuse statute. This involves the construction of a statute. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law that appellate courts review without deference to the trial court.
Gambling, § 945.03(5) — Constitutionality — Vagueness Challenge
State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Hahn: Bruce Elbert
Issue/Holding: The meaning of “gambling machine” is sufficiently well-understood as to survive a vagueness challenge. (The court reserves whether “contrivance” might be vague when applied to facts not raised by this case.)
Gambling, § 945.03(5) — Sufficiency of Evidence — Expert Testimony Unnecessary
State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Hahn: Bruce Elbert
Issue/Holding:
We reject Hahn’s argument that expert testimony was necessary to establish that these video poker machines were gambling machines. Although Hahn refers to cases from other jurisdictions in which technical aspects of the machines’ functions were at issue, he does not relate those cases to any disputed issue here.
§ 902.01(2), Judicial Notice — Reliance on, Ruling to Admit Evidence
State v. William R. Peterson, 222 Wis. 2d 449, 588 N.W.2d 84 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Peterson: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
A trial court sitting as fact-finder6 may derive inferences from the testimony and take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute,7 but it may not establish as an adjudicative fact that which is known to the judge as an individual.