On Point blog, page 3 of 4
Negligent Handling of Burning Materials, § 941.10
State v. Kerry J. Collins, 2010AP788-CR, District 1, 3/8/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Collins: Gary Grass; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction under § 941.10, court rejecting Collins’ argument that State failed to prove he was the person who set off flare in City Hall bathroom. Whatever weaknesses and discrepancies existed as to culpability merely raised questions for the jury to resolve;
CCW, § 941.23 – Unconstitutional as Applied
State v. Jeremy D. Pinnow, Milwaukee Co. Circ. Ct. No. 2010CM1978, 2/11/11
circuit court decision; case activity
Carrying concealed weapon charge dismissed, under as-applied (state) constitutional challenge, Art. I § 25. Pinnow had a cased, unloaded gun underneath the seat of his car, had himself been the recent victim of an armed robbery, believed with reason he was transporting the gun in a lawful manner, and wasn’t carrying the gun for an unlawful purpose.
Attempted Possession of Improvised Explosive Device, § 941.31(2)(b): Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Dennis C. Strong, 2011 WI App 43; for Strong: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence that Strong possessed pails filled with methyl ethyl ketone (i.e., acetone, or paint thinner), with bare electrical wires running through the pails and attached to a wall outlets, held sufficient to establish guilt for possessing improvised explosive device, § 941.31(2)(b). The court rejects the arguments that the material was flammable rather than “explosive,”
CCW – Constitutionality – Second Amendment
State v. Joshua D. Schultz, Clark County Case No. 10-CM-138, 10/12/10
Clark County circuit court decision; for Schultz: William Poss, SPD Trial, Black River Falls
The complaint in this matter alleges that on June 10, 2010, the defendant was carrying a concealed weapon, a knife in the waistband of his pants which was covered by his shirt. The State alleges this is contrary to section 941.23, Wis. Stats.
Evidence / IAC: Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA; Instruction: Recording Policy Interrogation; Impeachment: Prior Convictions
State v. Tarence A. Banks, 2010 WI App 107; for Banks: Scott D. Obernberger; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Comment on Refusal to Provide DNA – Ineffective Assistance
Prosecutorial use of Banks’ refusal, after arrest, to provide a warrantless DNA sample penalized him for exercising a constitutional right. Because no contemporaneous objection was made, the issue is raised as ineffective assistance of counsel,
§ 941.23, CCW – As-Applied Constitutionality, in Light of Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25 – Tavern Owner, Gun in Car Console
State v. Scott K. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, on certification
For Fisher: Paul B. Millis
Issue: Whether the right to bear arms provision of Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25 countenances prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon in a car’s console by a tavern owner who asserted its necessity for security purposes in that he routinely transported large amounts of cash.
Holding:
¶5 … (W)e conclude that § 941.23 is constitutional as applied to Fisher because his interest in exercising his right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security by carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle does not substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing § 941.23.…
¶18 … Defendants have the burden of proof.
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis – Particular Examples: Reckless Endangering — Competing Inferences
State v. Wayne A. Sutton, 2006 WI App 118, PFR filed 6/18/06
For Sutton: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the guilty plea to first-degree reckless endangering, amended from battery, was supported by a factual basis.
Holding:
¶21 At the plea hearing, the State presented the basis for the amended charge of first-degree reckless endangerment, relying in part on statements Sutton made to a West Bend police officer.
§ 941.29, Felon in Possession of Firearm — Constitutionality
State v. Louis D. Thomas, 2004 WI App 115, PFR filed 6/17/04
For Thomas: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue/Holding: Wis. Const. art. I, § 25 (“right to keep and bear arms”) did not effectively repeal § 941.29 (felon in possession). ¶¶7-12.
Issue/Holding: § 941.29 is neither vague, ¶¶14-18, nor overbroad, ¶¶19-23.
Issue/Holding: § 941.29 doesn’t violate equal protection, ¶¶24-29. (Comparative classes: felons / misdemeanants;
§ 941.23, Carrying concealed weapon – Facial Constitutionality, in Light of Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25
State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether § 941.23 is facially unconstitutional as impermissibly infringing on the right to bear arms.
Holding: The constitutional right of an individual to bear arms, Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25, being “fundamental” in nature, ¶20, the question is whether § 941.23 “reasonably” restricts that right, which in turn requires balancing the interests involved.
§ 941.23, Carrying concealed weapon – As-AppliedConstitutionality, in Light of Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25
State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether § 941.23 is unconstitutional as applied to Cole.
Holding:
¶48. Cole claims that he was carrying the weapons because he had been “the victim of a brutal beating when he was younger and he did not feel safe in the neighborhood.” (Pet’r Br. at 3.) He did not assert that he had the weapons in the car in response to any specific or imminent threat.