On Point: G. Ch. 944: Against sex. morality

State v. Bruce Duncan MacArthur, 2008 WI 72, on Certification
For MacArthur: Alex Flynn
Amicus: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Alleged violations, between 1965 and 1972, of since-repealed ch. 944 sexual assault statutes come within the statute of limitations provision extant during that time frame.

There is, of course, a whole lot more to it than that, at least in terms of getting to that point,

State v. David Richard Turnpaugh, 2007 WI App 222
For Turnpaugh: David P. Geraghty, Michael Sosnay

Issue: Given that, as charged, the offense required soliciting “sexual intercourse” (which in turn is defined as “vulvar penetration”), whether the statement “that he was looking for sex and he wanted me to masturbate and that he wanted to watch” is sufficient to support conviction.

Holding:

¶7        Although Turnpaugh said he was “looking for sex,” he limited the scope of that phrase by describing >what he was willing to pay for—watching Ferguson masturbate.

State v. Scott L. Stevenson, 2000 WI 71, 236 Wis. 2d 86, 613 N.W.2d 72, on certification
For Stevenson: Elizabeth Cavendish-Sosinski, Daniel P. Fay

Issue: Whether § 944.205(2)(a) is overbroad.

Holding: Yes. § 944.205(a) (a) prohibits depictions of nudity without the person’s knowledge and consent. Because this statute implicates first amendment rights, the state assumes the burden of proving its constitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.

County of Kenosha v. C & S Management, 223 Wis.2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), on certification
For C & S: Robert R. Henak, and Shellow, Shellow & Glynn

Holdings:

• Obscenity statute, Wis. Stat. § 944.21 (1995-96), survives freedom-of-speech and void-for-vagueness challenges.
• Expert testimony on community standards isn’t constitutionally required; telephone survey wasn’t relevant, largely because it didn’t convey the explicitness of a video,