On Point: 16. Sec. 940.19

United States v. James Alvin Castleman, USSC No. 12-1371, 3/26/14, reversing and remanding United States v. Castleman, 695 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2012); case activity

As noted in our analysis of SCOTUS’s decision to grant certiorari, the issue in this case is:

Whether [Castleman’s] Tennessee conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to the mother of his child qualifies as a conviction for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 U.S.C.

State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2833-CR,  District 1, 10/13/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Lesser-Included Instruction – Battery

Harris not entitled to instruction on simple battery as lesser included of substantial battery; the medical evidence established without contradiction that the victim suffered a fractured rib, therefore no reasonable jury could have acquitted him of the greater offense,

State v. Richard Martin Kubat, 2010AP509-CR, District 3, 9/21/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kubat: Marc Grant Kurzman; BiC; Resp.

Battery – Self-Defense – Sufficiency of Evidence

A verbal confrontation between truckers at a truck stop eventuated in Belcher disabling Kubat’s truck and inviting Kubat to get his punk ass out of his cab “and get it.” Kubat accepted the invitation and brought his tire knocker along as his own guest.  

State v. James D. Miller, 2009 WI App 111, PFR filed 8/3/09
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶52   We conclude as a matter of law that shooting a person in the thigh at a range of sixteen feet with a shotgun is practically certain to cause at least a protracted loss or impairment of the function of the person’s leg, and is therefore injury constituting “great bodily harm” within the meaning of the statutes.

State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243
For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall

Issue/Holding: The following instruction is sufficient: “Great bodily harm means serious bodily injury.  You, the jury, are to alone to determine whether the bodily injury in your judgment is serious.” (La Barge v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 327, 333, 246 N.W.2d 794, 797 (1976) and Cheatham v. State,

State v. Russell L. Dibble, 2002 WI App 219, PFR filed 8/14/02
For Dibble: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: First-degree recklessly endangering safety, § 941.30(1), is not a lesser included offense of aggravated battery, § 940.19(5), under the “elements-only” test. Aggravated battery requires intent (to cause great bodily harm); endangering safety requires recklessness (while showing utter disregard for human life). It is this last —

State v. Russell L. Dibble, 2002 WI App 219, PFR filed 8/14/02
For Dibble: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: First-degree recklessly endangering safety, § 941.30(1), is not a lesser included offense of aggravated battery, § 940.19(5), under the “elements-only” test. Aggravated battery requires intent (to cause great bodily harm); endangering safety requires recklessness (while showing utter disregard for human life). It is this last —

State v. Charles Dante Higgs, 230 Wis.2d 1, 601 N.W.2d 653 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Higgs: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether splashing the victim’s face with urine satisfies the battery element of bodily harm.

Holding: The mere fact that urine struck the victim’s face isn’t enough to establish bodily harm, but the victim’s testimony that he felt stinging and burning satisfied the element.

State v. Charles Dante Higgs, 230 Wis.2d 1, 601 N.W.2d 653 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Higgs: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether a sufficient factual basis was established on the element of bodily harm (where the defendant splashed the victim’s face with urine) to support a guilty plea to battery.

Holding: The mere fact that urine struck the victim’s face isn’t enough to establish bodily harm, but the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony that he felt stinging and burning satisfied the element.