On Point blog, page 4 of 7
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court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Ismert: Kristen D. Schipper; BiC; Resp.; Reply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.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Bail Jumping – Single Bond, Same Condition but Different Cases
State v. Dana Eaglefeathers, 2009 WI App 2, PFR filed 1/9/09
For Eaglefeathers: Patricia A. Fitzgerald
Issue/Holding: Violation of the same condition in a single bond applicable to two different cases (failure to appear at both preliminary hearings scheduled for the same time and court) supports multiple bail jumping charges:
¶8 The parties do not dispute that the offenses charged against Eaglefeathers are identical in law;
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State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion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State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion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,
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.
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,
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);
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,
Stop – Basis – Reasonable Suspicion, “Evasion and Flight”
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Refusal to obey an officer’s command to halt reinforces extant reasonable suspicion to stop the individual:
¶73 Officer Alfredson testified that after he ordered Young to return to the car the first time, Young “turned and started walking away.”
Resisting, § 946.41 – “Lawful Authority” – Initially Unlawful Act by Police Doesn’t Preclude Conviction for Defendant’s Subsequent Conduct
State v. Anna Annina, 2006 WI App 202
For Van Hout: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding: Although police entry into the defendant’s house was pursuant to a search warrant later declared to be invalid, the defendant’s acts in response to that entry amounted to disorderly conduct which did allow for an arrest under lawful police authority; defendant could therefore be convicted for resisting a lawful arrest for disorderly conduct,