On Point blog, page 4 of 4
§ 948.40(1), Contributing to delinquency of Minor — Sufficiency of Evidence — Intent Element
State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient to establish the intent element, and therefore to support conviction, for contributing to delinquency of a minor, § 948.40(1): “The jury reasonably could infer from the evidence that Williams was aware that his participation in illegal gambling with James D.
§ 948.07, Enticement — Elements — Proof of Victim’s Age
State v. Timothy P. Koenck, 2001 WI App 93, 242 Wis. 2d 693, 626 N.W.2d 359
For Koenck: Lew Wasserman
Issue: “(W)hether in a prosecution under § 948.07 the charges must be dismissed because the State cannot prove that the victim had not attained the age of eighteen [because the ‘victim’ is fictitious].” ¶7.
Holding:
¶28 Within the contemplation of WIS. STAT. § 948.07,
§ 948.31, Interference with Child Custody/Abduction: Construction of Elements
State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, reversed, other grounds, 2002 WI 34
For Samuel: Robert R. Henak
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for interference with child custody, § 948.31(2) and abduction, § 948.30(1)(a).
Holding:
¶38 We adopt the State’s construction. So long as the defendant has had a hand in physically removing the child from the parents’ possession,
§ 948.02, Child Abuse — failing to protect child from sexual assault — elements — person responsible for child’s welfare.
State v. Suzette M. Ward, 228 Wis.2d 301, 596 N.W.2d 887 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Ward: Patricia L. Arreazola
Holding: The § 948.02(3) element, “person responsible for the welfare of a child,” was properly defined in jury instructions as “person employed or used by one legally responsible for the child’s welfare.” Payment, that is, isn’t required. Evidence of this element is therefore held sufficient, though the child care arrangement wasn’t fiscal.