On Point blog, page 1 of 4
SCOW: Disorderly conduct is not a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” that precludes granting a CCW license
Daniel Doubek v. Joshua Kaul, 2022 WI 31, 5/20/22, on certification from the court of appeals; case activity (including briefs)
A person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” as defined under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A), is barred from possessing a gun under federal law and, therefore, from getting a license to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin, § 175.60(3)(b). A unanimous supreme court holds that a violation of § 947.01(1) is not a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Defense win: Social media posts mixing photos of guns and a crowded theatre was protected speech, not a “true threat”
Town of Brookfield v. Martin M. Gonzalez, 2021AP218, District 2, 10/27/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Gonzalez posted some photos on Instagram as a “story,” a series of shorter, more casual, less permanent images or posts than standard posts on a user’s Instagram feed (so we’re told). The first photo showed a ticket to an upcoming movie at a Brookfield cinema. The second showed loose bullets and a hand holding a loaded magazine. The third showed the inside of a darkened movie theater. (¶3). This “story” led to Gonzalez being convicted for violating the municipality’s disorderly conduct ordinance, a conviction the court of appeals now vacates.
Defense win: Disorderly conduct charges precluded by First Amendment
State v. Aaron Matthew Oleston, 2020AP952-CR, District 4, 7/15/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Olseston was charged with five counts of disorderly conduct for “hurling profanities and personal insults” (¶14) at Janesville police officers as they came and left the police station, as well as filming some of the encounters. Three of the five counts can’t be prosecuted because Oleston’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment; the other two can be, because they went beyond protected speech.
State presented sufficient evidence to support adjudication for making terrorist threats
State v. D.A.M., 2020AP821, District 2, 11/25/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity
The evidence at D.A.M.’s trial was sufficient to show his conduct constituted a terrorist threat under § 947.019.
Evidence sufficient to support disorderly conduct conviction
County of Walworth v. Bozena Twarowksi, 2020AP208, 9/16/20, District 2, (1-judge opinion ineligible for publication); case activity
Twarowski went to pick up her dog from a kennel, balked at an inflated bill, and apparently became argumentative and hostile. The trial court convicted her of disorderly conduct, and she appealed pro se. According to the court of appeals, which criticized her poorly developed argument, Twaroski challenged the trial court’s finding that the County’s witness was credible.
True threat instruction wasn’t needed at this disorderly conduct jury trial
State v. Joseph K. Edwards, 2019AP2138-CR, District 1, 7/21/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Edwards was charged with disorderly conduct with use of a dangerous weapon for “creepy, stalker-like behavior.” (¶6). The court of appeals rejects his complaint that the jury wasn’t instructed on the definition of “true threat” under State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762.
“True threat” instruction wasn’t needed at disorderly conduct trial
State v. Kaprisha E. Greer, 2019AP806-CR, District 1, 1/22/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Greer seeks a new trial in the interest of justice on the ground that the jury at her disorderly conduct trial should have been instructed about the meaning of “true threat” because the state elicited evidence about a threat during its case-in-chief. The court of appeals rejects her claim.
Court upholds convictions for multiple counts of sending unlawful emails, bail jumping
State v. Brian A. Barwick, 2017AP958-CR through 2017AP961-CR, District 1, 9/5/18 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Barwick was charged with eleven counts of various crimes in four separate cases that were consolidated for trial. He makes various unsuccessful challenges to his convictions.
Disorderly conduct isn’t a lesser included of unlawful use of a computerized communication system
State v. James C. Faustmann, 2017AP1932-CR, District 2, 3/7/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Under the test for lesser included offenses under § 939.66(1), disorderly conduct in violation of § 947.01(1) isn’t a lesser-included offense of unlawful use of a computerized communication system in violation of § 947.0125(2)(a).
It’s a fact—the defendant’s hair looked “marvelous”!
State v. Keith J. Eggum, 2016AP2036-CR, District 2, 11/8/17 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
And that factual finding dooms Eggum’s claim that his “noticeably disheveled” appearance made his trial unfair. Eggum’s complaint about the presence of extra officers for courtroom security fares no better. And topping it all off, Eggum’s First Amendment defense to the disorderly conduct charge makes no headway, either.