On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Jefrey S. Kimbrough, 2001 WI App 138, PFR filed 6/25/01
For Kimbrough: Glenn C. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the evidence satisfied the reckless-conduct element, in particular that the defendant was subjectively aware of the risks in shaking a baby who died as a result.

Holding: The jury was entitled to draw a finding of guilt on this element from competing inferences: Though defendant’s intelligence was “limited,”

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).

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,

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,

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,

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,

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.

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,

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,

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 …