On Point blog, page 1 of 1
COA affirms convictions for election fraud and misconduct in public office by Milwaukee Election Commission’s deputy director.
State v. Kimberly D. Zapata, 2025AP425-CR, 5/12/26, District I (recommended for publication); case activity
The Deputy Director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission was convicted at trial of election fraud and misconduct in public office after she had fictitious military absentee ballots sent to a state legislator to publicize the potential for election fraud with such ballots. In a decision recommended for publication, the COA affirmed her convictions because the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find she “obtained” the ballots for purposes of election fraud and acted in her public capacity.
COA holds that 911 call created “emergency” justifying warrantless entry into home
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.
Jury Instructions – Conclusive Presumptions – Misconduct in Public Office, § 946.12(3), Elements of Duty and Intent
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);
Escape, § 946.42 – “Actual Custody” – Dismissal of Charge but Parole Violation “Apprehension Request”
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.
Escape, § 946.42 – “Actual Custody” – Effect of Stay of Probation Confinement Order
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,