On Point blog, page 13 of 13
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Repeated Sexual Assault, § 948.025(1) – Different Counties
State v. Thomas A. Nommensen, 2007 WI App 224
For Nommensen: Anthony L. O’Malley
Issue/Holding: Although charges of repeated sexual assault, § 948.025(1) were the same in law, they were different in fact because they :
¶8 Charged offenses are not multiplicitous if the facts are either separate in time or of a significantly different nature. Id. at 749. “The appropriate question is whether these acts allegedly committed … are so significantly different in fact that they may properly be denominated separate crimes although each would furnish a factual underpinning or a substitute legal element for the violation of the same statute.” Id.
SVP: Likelihood of Future Sexual Violence Satisfies Substantive Due Process & Equal Protection
State v. Scott R. Nelson, 2007 WI App 2, PFR filed 1/22/07
For Nelson: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue/Holding:
¶15 … Even under the “more likely than not” standard, there must be a strong nexus between the person’s mental disorder and that person’s level of dangerousness. Under this standard, the likelihood that the person will engage in an act of sexual violence is more than 50%.
SVP Commitment – Expert Misstatement of Test for Commitment – Interest of Justice Review
State v. Barry L. Smalley, 2007 WI App 219, PFR filed 10/19/07
For Smalley: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: State SVP expert’s unobjected-to misstatement of test for measuring reoffense risk (“more likely than not” means “any chance greater than zero” rather then more than 50%) didn’t support reversal in the interest of justice:
¶10 First, Dr. Jurek’s statement was an isolated occurrence in a three-day trial.
Escape, § 946.42 – “Actual Custody” – Dismissal of Charge but Parole Violation “Apprehension Request”
Meriter Hospital v. Dane County, 2003 WI App 248, affirmed, 2004 WI 145
Issue: Whether issuance of an “apprehension request” for alleged parole violation, following dismissal of pending charges upon jail inmate’s transfer to a hospital for treatment, leaves the person in “custody.”
Holding:
… We recently decided that a person did not have criminal status while hospitalized once a trial court stays confinement.