On Point: E. Chapter 941: Against public

State v. Shironski A. Hunter, 2014AP2521-CR, District 1, 9/15/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The trial court didn’t err in admitting statements witnesses made during a 911 call and to police at the scene of the crime because the statements were excited utterances. Moreover, the statements weren’t testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes, so admitting them didn’t violate the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him.

State v. Dijon L. Carter, 2014AP2707-CR, District 1, 7/14/15 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

While a court adjudicating a juvenile delinquent for a felony is required to warn the juvenile about the prohibition on possessing a firearm under § 941.29, the warning requirement doesn’t add another element to the offenses created by § 941.29. Thus, Carter can be convicted of violating § 941.29(2)(b) even though he wasn’t warned about the ban on firearm possession when he was adjudicated delinquent for possession of THC with intent to deliver.

State v. Steven E. Steffek, 2015AP93-CR, District 2, 7/1/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The evidence was sufficient to convict Steffek of endangering safety by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon, § 941.20(1)(a), as a party to the crime, despite the fact there was no evidence that anyone was dodging bullets in a “zone of danger.”

State v. Nathan M. Caffero, 14AP1711-CR, District 3, 4/7/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Despite the trial testimony of Muxlow, Caffero’s girlfriend, that she was the person who caused the fire in their apartment by putting lit incense on top of a toilet paper roll, Caffero’s own admissions to the police gave the jury a basis to infer he subsequently handled the smoldering roll and that he did so negligently. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to support his conviction for violating § 941.10.

State v. Wyatt D. Henning, 2013 WI App 15; case activity

The crime of attempted possession of a firearm by a felon is recognized in Wisconsin, distinguishing State v. Briggs, 218 Wis. 2d 61, 579 N.W.2d 783 (Ct. App. 1998):

¶14      Turning to the particular language of the felon in possession of a firearm statute, and the case law further explaining the elements of that crime,

State v. Mark A. Sanders, 2013 WI App 4; case activity

Search incident to arrest — area within arrestee’s “immediate control”

Search of bed in room from which defendant emerged just before being arrested upheld under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), which permits an arresting officer to search the person arrested and the area within the arrestee’s “immediate control” in order to prevent the destruction of evidence of the crime and protect officers’ safety.

State v. Daniel Lee Rueden, Jr., 2011AP001034-CR, District 4, 6/7/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Rueden: Eileen A. Hirsch, Kaitlin A. Lamb, SPD; case activity

Felon-in-possession, § 941.29, is not unconstitutional either facially or as applied in this instance; State v. Pocian, 2012 WI App 58, deemed controlling.

¶6        We need not discuss the specifics of Rueden’s facial and as-applied challenges because,

State v. Clarence E. Brown, 2011AP2049-CR, District 1, 4/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Daniel R. Drigot; case activity

Carrying Concealed Weapon, § 941.23 (2009-10) – Facially Constitutional

The court upholds the constitutionality of the prior version of § 941.23, CCW, as not violating the right to bear arms (since-modified, to allow conceal-carry under specified circumstances, 2011 WI Act 35). 

State v. Thomas M. Pocian, 2012 WI App 58 (recommended for publication); for Pocian: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell, Geoffrey R. Misfeldt; case activity

¶2        In 1986, Thomas M. Pocian was convicted of writing forged checks, a felony.  Twenty-four years later, Pocian was prosecuted under Wis. Stat. § 941.29, which prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm.  Relying on Heller and McDonald,

State v. Sean T. Powell, 2012 WI App 33 (recommended for publication); for Powell: Richard L. Kaiser; case activity

Conviction for CCW, § 941.23, requires proof of a “dangerous weapon,” which is in turn defined under §  939.22(10) to include “any firearm.” The pattern instruction, Wis JI-Criminal 910 embellishes the definition: “A firearm is a weapon that acts by force of gunpowder.” Powell argues that, because the State failed to show that his loaded,