On Point: 3. Elements

State v. Ryan D. Wilkie, 2022AP730-CR, 3/11/25, District III (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

COA rejects Wilkie’s interesting constitutional arguments regarding the authority of law enforcement to enter his home without a warrant and affirms his conviction for obstructing an officer.

State v. Sherry L. Schultz, 2007 WI App 257; prior history: State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2004 WI App 89, affirmed, 2005 WI 31

For Schultz: Stephen L. Morgan, Jennifer M. Krueger

Issue/Holding: Jury instructions on the elements of duty and intent under § 946.12(3) created mandatory conclusive presumptions:

¶10      Schultz contends that the following sentences in the jury instruction given by the trial court operated as mandatory conclusive presumptions on the issues of intent and duty: “The use of a state resource to promote a candidate in a political campaign or to raise money for a candidate provides to that candidate a dishonest advantage” (establishing the intent element);

Meriter Hospital v. Dane County, 2003 WI App 248, affirmed, 2004 WI 145

Issue: Whether issuance of an “apprehension request” for alleged parole violation, following dismissal of pending charges upon jail inmate’s transfer to a hospital for treatment, leaves the person in “custody.”

Holding:

… We recently decided that a person did not have criminal status while hospitalized once a trial court stays confinement.

State v. Rick L. Edwards, 2003 WI App 221, PFR filed 10/24/03
For Edwards: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A probationer whose order of jail confinement has been stayed during a period of hospitalization is not in custody for § 946.42 purposes and therefore may not be charged with escape for leaving the hospital and failing to return to jail. ¶21, and distinguishing,