On Point blog, page 7 of 7
§ 943.10(2), Burglary While Armed – nexus of weapon to underlying crime
State v. David J. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Gardner: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Holding: Gardner was convicted of burglary while armed, § 943.10(2), and argues that the crime requires a nexus of weapon to burglary. The argument fails, largely on authority of State v. Norris, 214 Wis. 2d 25, 571 N.W.2d 857 (Ct. App. 1997).
Gardner next challenges his conviction claiming that “due process of law and fundamental fairness demand” that there be some nexus between the commission of the underlying crime and the fact that the accused was carrying a weapon.
Theft from Person, § 943.20(3)(e) – Element of “From the Person” – Property Taken from Person’s Wheelchair
State v. Sylvester Hughes, 218 Wis. 2d 538, 582 N.W.2d 49 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Hughes: Michael H. Kopp
Issue/Holding:
Accordingly, precisely because persons who use wheelchairs, and those who do not, deserve equal treatment and protection under the laws prohibiting theft,9 we conclude that theft “from the person” encompasses the taking of property from the wheelchair of one sitting in the wheelchair at the time of the taking.10
10 In this case,
Forgery § 943.38(2) – Elements: Intent to Defraud not Element
State v. Daniel T. O’Shea, 221 Wis. 2d 418, 585 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1998)
For O’Shea: Jeffrey D. Knickmeier
Issue/Holding: Forgery, §.943.38(2), does not require that the offender act with intent to defraud.
Our first inquiry must be to the language of the statute, particularly to the language in subsection 2 that refers to subsection 1. Subsection 2 states that an offender violates the subsection when he or she knowingly “utters … any forged writing or object mentioned in sub.
Fraudulent Use of Transaction Card, § 943.41(5)(a)1.a – Elements: Actual Possession not Necessary
State v. Daniel T. O’Shea, 221 Wis. 2d 418, 585 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1998)
For O’Shea: Jeffrey D. Knickmeier
Issue/Holding:
Shea alleges that § 943.41(3), Stats., requires the State to prove that the offender acquired actual possession of a cardholder’s financial transaction card without consent. …
We begin with the language of § 943.41(5)(a), Stats., which reads as follows:
1.
§ 943.10, Burglary (Entry with Intent to Commit Felony) — Unanimity as to Intended Felony not Required
State v. Gordon Hammer, 216 Wis. 2d 214, 576 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App 1997)
For Hammer: Charles W. Jones, Jr.
Issue: Whether juror unanimity is required for burglary, as to which felony was intended during the unlawful entry.
Holding:
In addressing Hammer’s unanimity claim, we engage in a two-step process. We must first determine whether this statute creates only one offense with multiple modes of commission or,