On Point blog, page 2 of 3
Obstructing an officer, § 946.41 – “Officer” includes jailer or correctional officer
State v. Mark A. Gierczak, 2012AP965-CR, District 4, 12/13/12
court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity
For purposes of obstructing an officer § 946.41, “officer” includes someone with authority “to take another into custody,” and therefore includes a correctional officer at a county jail, ¶¶11-12. The court of appeals thus rejects Gierczak’s challenge to the factual basis for his obstructing plea where as a county jail inmate,
Obstructing, § 946.41(1) – Sufficiency of Evidence; Effective Assistance – Prosecutor’s Closing Argument
State v. Keith A. Stich, 2010AP2849-CR, District 2, 6/22/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Stich: Andrew Joseph Burgoyne; case activity
Stich’s failure to heed an officer’s instruction to stop – instead, Stich walked away and into his house and encouraged his companion Lidbloom to do likewise – established the crime of obstructing. The police were investigating an earlier incident, and “Stich’s actions, which delayed the deputies’ ability to question Lidbloom,
Disorderly Conduct, § 947.01 – Sufficiency of Evidence; Resisting, § 946.41(1) – Jury Instructions
State v. Robert Lyle Lawver, Jr., 2010AP382-CR, District 4, 5/5/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lawver: Cole Daniel Ruby; case activity
Conviction for disorderly conduct upheld on following facts:
¶9 The pertinent facts include the following. Lawver was walking at night down an unlit highway, traveling with traffic, so that he would not have been in a position to see motorists approaching from behind him.
Obstructing – Complaint, Probable Cause; Self-representation
State v. Richard A. Wusterbarth, 2010AP1306-CR, District 3, 2/1/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Wusterburth: Eileen A Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; Wusterburth BiC; State Resp.; Reply
The complaint established probable cause for obstructing, § 946.41(1), by alleging that Wusterburth made a false report to the police that a neighbor was manufacturing drugs,
Obstructing – Unanimity – Course of Conduct; Obstructing – Sufficiency of Proof
State v. Jennette L. Ellifritz, 2010AP713-CR, District 2, 9/1/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Ellifritz: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Obstructing – Unanimity – Course of Conduct
Because Ellifritz’s actions occurred during a single course of action, over a short (40-second) period of time, instructional failure to require agreement as to which separate act constituted obstructing didn’t violate her right to unanimous verdict;
Venue: Instruction, Proof; Obstructing: Proof; Instruction: Recently Stolen Property
State v. Donald L. Schultz, 2010 WI App 124 (decision originally issued 7/20/10, subsequently withdrawn; reissued 8/17/10); for Schultz: Margaret A. Maroney, Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Venue – Instruction
¶12 Although venue is not an element of a crime, it nonetheless must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v.
Obstructing, § 946.41 – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Roy B. Ismert, No. 2009AP1971-CR, District IV, 7/1/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Ismert: Kristen D. Schipper; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The evidence was sufficient to support the obstructing element that Ismert knew the police officer had legal authority to stop, question and arrest him.
¶14 We conclude that Lossman and Grobstick are persuasive on the facts before us.
Obstructing, § 946.41 – “Incomplete” Instruction, “Lawful Authority” – Harmless Error
State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion
For Ferguson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Where it was clear not only that Ferguson obstructed the police outsideher apartment but also that the jury so found, arguable omission of a “complete” instruction on whether the police acted with lawful authority in entering her apartment was harmless:
¶43 The jury instruction here was a correct statement of the law for police actions outside of Ferguson’s home.
Obstructing, § 946.41 – “Lawful Authority” – Jury Instruction, Generally
State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion
For Ferguson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶31 Because “lawful authority” is an element of obstruction under Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1), if the jury was not properly instructed on the meaning of “lawful authority,” given the facts presented to the jury, the circuit court erred.See Harvey,
Obstructing or Resisting Warden, § 29.951 – Single Crime with Multiple Modes of Commission – Unanimity not Required
State v. David A. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131, affirmed, 2010 WI 84, ¶2 n. 3
For Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Unanimity is not required on whether the defendant “resisted” or “obstructed” a warden on a charge of violating § 29.951, ¶¶21-42.
All the rest is commentary. (Translated: the court undertakes a lengthy analysis that won’t be summarized.) Of particular note,