On Point blog, page 12 of 13
§ 940.19(5), Aggravated Battery — First-degree Reckless Endangering Safety, § 941.30(1), Not Lesser Included Offense of
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 —
§ 941.30(1), First-degree Reckless Endangering Safety – Not Lesser Included Offense of Aggravated Battery, § 940.19(5)
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 —
§ 940.02, First-degree reckless homicide — Subjective Awareness of Risk — sufficiency of evidence
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,”
§ 940.03, Felony Murder — Causation — PTAC
Lavelle Chambers v. McCaughtry, 264 F.3d 732 (7th Cir 2001)
For Chambers: John T. Wasielewski
Issue/Holding: Chambers is liable for the killing of a police officer by Chambers’ codefendant, while the pair were trying to flee apprehension during commission of a felony (armed burglary).
§ 940.11(2), Hiding Corpse — Sufficiency of Evidence
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).
§ 940.203(2), Battery — Threat to Judge
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,
Resisting, § 946.41(1); Battery to Officer, § 940.20(2) – “official capacity”/”lawful authority
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.”
§ 940.20(1), Battery by Prisoner — Probationer
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,
§ 940.23(1), Reckless Injury — “Utter Disregard for Human Life”
State v. Stephen L. Jensen, 2000 WI 84, 236 Wis. 2d 521, 613 N.W.2d 170, affirming unpublished decision
For Jensen: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue1: Whether the first degree reckless injury (§ 940.23(1)) element of “utter disregard for human life” requires proof of the actor’s subjective awareness of the risk of death.
Holding: “¶17 Although ‘utter disregard for human life’ clearly has something to do with mental state,
§ 940.24, Negligent Offenses — handling dangerous weapon – dogs
State v. Jene R. Bodoh, 226 Wis.2d 718, 595 N.W.2d 330 (1999), affirming State v. Bodoh, 220 Wis.2d 102, 582 N.W.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bodoh: Michael D. Mandelman
Holding: A dog can be a dangerous weapon if used or intended or intended to be used in a manner calculated or likely to cause death or great bodily harm. (This holding has the effect of ratifying a prior court of appeals decision on this point,