On Point blog, page 6 of 7
§ 904.01, Relevance – Racketeering — Losses Incurred by Defrauded Investors
State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove
Issue/Holding: Evidence of investor losses is relevant to a charge of racketeering, § 946.83. ¶37.
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,
Obstructing, § 946.41(1) — Mere denial of Culapbility of Crime under Investigation
State v. Joseph M. Espinoza, 2002 WI App 51, subsequently overruled by State v. Brent R. Reed, 2005 WI 53
For Espinoza: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a suspect’s mere denial of guilt of the crime under investigation may in and of itself establish probable cause for the separate crime of obstructing, § 946.41(1).
Holding:
¶20.
Private Interest in Public Contract, § 946.13(1)(a) — Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski
Issue/Holding:
¶20 We reject Venema’s argument that a contract has to be in existence in order for a violation to occur under Wis. Stat. § 946.13(1)(a). Such an interpretation is undermined by the plain meaning of the statutory language. The common meaning of “negotiate” is to “communicate with another party for the purpose of reaching an understanding[.]”
Escape, § 946.42 — “Actual Custody”
State v. Deborah J. Zimmerman, 2001 WI App 238
For Zimmerman: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether someone in the custody of a probation or parole agent “is in actual custody” for purposes of the escape statute, § 946.42.
Holding:
¶5. To be guilty of escape, Zimmerman must be found to be in custody. Wis JI-Criminal 1773. The relevant language of the escape statute defines custody to include “without limitation actual custody of an institution …
§ 946.31(1)(a), Perjury – Elements – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64
For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a perjury conviction.
Holding: Proof of the elements of perjury — “(1) An oral statement while under oath; (2) The statement was false when made; (3) The defendant did not believe that the statement was true when he or she made it;
Resisting, § 946.41(1); Battery to Officer, § 940.20(2) – “official capacity”/”lawful authority
State v. Leslie M. Haynes, 2001 WI App 266, PFR filed 11/2/01
For Haynes: Gerald F. Kuchler
Issue: Whether “the arresting officer from Waukesha county was not acting in his official capacity or with lawful authority as a police officer when he asked [Haynes] to perform field sobriety tests, arrested her and transported her to a hospital for blood tests because the detention and arrest took place in Milwaukee county.”
§ 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,