On Point blog, page 2 of 3
Manipulation of Adult Jurisdiction over Juvenile Offense; Bail Jumping – Jurisdiction to Impose Conditions; Sanctions – Appellate Violations
State v. Drew E. Bergwin, 2010 WI App 137; for Bergwin: Roberta A. Heckes; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Manipulation of Adult Jurisdiction over Juvenile Offense
When the State brings a criminal charge against an adult defendant for an offense committed as a juvenile, the State must affirmatively show that the delay in charging wasn’t intended to manipualte the system to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction,
Bail-Jumping, § 946.49(1)(a) – “Release from Custody” – Cash and Recognizance Bonds Support Bail Jumping
State v. Travis S. Dewitt, 2008 WI App 134, PFR filed 8/19/08
For Dewitt: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether someone simultaneously held under personal recognizance and cash bonds can be guilty of bail jumping for acts committed in the jail.
Holding:
¶12 … Wis. Stat. § 946.49 provides that someone who “having been released from custody under [Wis.
Bail-Jumping, § 946.49(1)(a) – Reversal of Conviction on Which Offense Premised
State v. David Richard Turnpaugh, 2007 WI App 222
For Turnpaugh: David P. Geraghty, Michael Sosnay
Issue/Holding: Reversal of the conviction for the crime on which the bail-jumping “was premised” also requires reversal of the bail-jumping conviction, ¶8.
This isn’t to say that bail-jumping requires >conviction on the underlying offense, see, e.g., State v. Kelley L. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226,
Bail Jumping, § 946.49(1)(b) – Generally
State v. Daniel Wyatt Henning, 2004 WI 89
For Henning: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶39. In Wisconsin, bail jumping and the crime underlying a bail jumping charge are distinct and separate offenses for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. State ex rel. Jacobus v. State, 208 Wis. 2d 39, 53, 559 N.W.2d 900 (1997) (citing State v.
Bail Jumping, § 946.49(1)(b) – Necessity of Finding of Guilt of Underlying Crime
State v. Wyatt Daniel Henning, 2003 WI App 54, reversed on other grounds, 2004 WI 89
For Henning: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶25. We appreciate that State v. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226, 257 Wis. 2d 579, 652 N.W.2d 393, review denied, 2002 WI 121, 257 Wis. 2d 122, 653 N.W.2d 893 (Wis.
Bail Jumping, § 946.69(1)(b) — Conviction on Underlying Crime Unnecessary
State v. Kelley L. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226
For Hauk: David D. Cook
Issue/Holding: State need not charge defendant with both bail jumping and underlying crime in order to obtain conviction for bail jumping (i.e., violating bond by committing crime). ¶¶14-18.
¶19 We therefore conclude that as long as there is evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant intentionally violated his or her bond by committing a crime,
§ 943.10(1)(a), Burglary – Entry to Commit Felony (Bail Jumping, § 946.49(1)(b))
State v. Jerome G. Semrau, 2000 WI App 54, 233 Wis. 2d 508, 608 N.W.2d 376
For Semrau: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the commission of felony bail jumping, by entering the complainant’s home in violation of bond conditions, supports burglary-entry of dwelling with intent to commit felony.
Holding: The underlying felony component of burglary must be a crime against persons or property; Semrau’s “core conduct”
§ 946.49, Bail Jumping — Condition Restricting Contact with Individual
State v. Peter J. Schaab, 2000 WI App 204, 238 Wis. 2d 598, 617 N.W.2d 872
For Schaab: Michael G. Artery
Issue: Whether the evidence supported bindover on bail jumping, where the allegedly violated bond condition allowed Schaab to have “incidental contact at work” with an individual, and Schaab was seen talking to the individual at the work site after Schaab was no longer employed there.
Holding: Bail jumping requires intentional violation of a bond condition,
Bail jumping – sufficiency of evidence – no drug consumption, positive urine test.
State v. Louis Taylor, 226 Wis.2d 490, 595 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Taylor: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a positive urine test, while the subject is under is on bail with a no drug consumption bond condition, is sufficient to support a felony bail jumping conviction.
Holding:/Analysis:
“Where the State prosecutes an individual under Wis. Stat. § 946.49 for bail jumping,
Doubke Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Bail Jumping – Single Bond, Different Conditions
State v. Daniel Anderson, 219 Wis.2d 739, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998), reversing State v. Anderson, 214 Wis. 2d 126, 570 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Anderson: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether violating different conditions of a single bond supports multiple bail jumping counts.
Holding: Anderson, released on an otherwise unrelated case, was ordered as a condition of bail not to drink or have contact with the victim.