On Point: 17. Sec. 940.20

State v. Dione Wendell Haywood, 2009 WI App 178
For Haywood: Robert E. Haney

Issue/Holding: In a battery-to-officer prosecution, it is no defense that the officer refused to leave the premises when the resident withdrew consent to enter, because acting “lawfully” is not an element:

¶11      The flaw in Haywood’s contention, however, is that a law-enforcement officer need not be acting “lawfully” for what he or she does to be done in the officer’s “official capacity.”  Rather,

State v. Leslie M. Haynes, 2001 WI App 266, PFR filed 11/2/01
For Haynes: Gerald F. Kuchler

Issue: Whether “the arresting officer from Waukesha county was not acting in his official capacity or with lawful authority as a police officer when he asked [Haynes] to perform field sobriety tests, arrested her and transported her to a hospital for blood tests because the detention and arrest took place in Milwaukee county.”

State v. James T. Fitzgerald, 2000 WI App 55, 233 Wis. 2d 584, 608 N.W.2d 391
For Fitzgerald: Daniel P. Dunn

Issue: Whether a probationer in custody under a probation hold is necessarily a “prisoner” within the battery by prisoner statute, Wis. Stat. § 940.20(1).

Holding: Because a “prisoner” is someone confined as a result of a violation of the law; and because probation rules and conditions have the force of law,

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,