On Point: J. Ch. 948: Against children

court of appeals decision, for Patterson: David R. Karpe

Multiplicity – First-Degree Reckless Homicide by Delivery of Controlled Substance, § 940.02(2)(a) and Contributing to Delinquency Resulting in Death of Child, § 948.40(4)(a): Not Multiplicitous
Based largely on State v. Jimmie Davison, 2003 WI 89 (multiple convictions for battery permissible so long as multiple batteries have been charged), the court holds that § 939.66(2) permits conviction for both §§ 940.02(2)(a) and 948.04(4)(a),

 court of appeals decision; for Lesik: Anthony Cotton

Overbreadth challenge to 948.02, sexual assault of a child
Sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, § 948.02, isn’t unconstitutionally overbroad, against a theory that it criminalizes acts undertaken for “proper medical purpose.” Although the statute is silent with respect to medical conduct, potential overbreadth may be cured through judicial construction and the court therefore “conclude(s) here that ‘sexual intercourse’ as used in the sexual assault of a child statute does not include ‘bona fide medical,

State v. Christopher F. Becker, 2009 WI App 59, PFR filed 5/8/09
For Becker: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Waived objection to jury instruction “which failed to tie a particular act of sexual contact to a particular count” on a 2-count information of sexual assault of a child, not prejudicial (State v. Marcum, 166 Wis. 2d 908, 480 N.W.2d 545 (Ct.

State v. James F. Lala, 2009 WI App 137, PFR filed 9/1/09
For Lala: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11      Sexually explicit conduct as defined in Wis. Stat. § 948.01(7)(e) includes actual or simulated “lewd exhibition of intimate parts.” The term “lewd,” however, is not statutorily defined, nor has a single definition been established by cases interpreting similar child pornography laws. See State v.

State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161
For Patterson: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding:

¶29      We will assume, for purposes of Patterson’s argument, that the definition of “juvenile” in Wis. Stat. § 938.02 applies for purposes of defining “delinquency” in Wis. Stat. § 948.40. Nonetheless, Patterson’s statutory analysis ignores the fact that a seventeen-year-old is only excepted from the definition of “juvenile” for a single purpose,

State v. Eric T. Olson, 2008 WI App 171
For Olson: Byron C. Lichstein

Issue/Holding: The “act other than element” of § 948.075(3) isn’t satisfied by either transmission of live video of the shirtless defendant, or by his prior sexual encounters with others he met on-line:

¶11      Accordingly, we read the statute to require that, before the State may obtain a conviction under WIS. STAT.

State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding: Providing cocaine to a minor in exchange for sex supported plea-based conviction for enticement within § 948.07(6), ¶23.

State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue: Whether repeated “dope dating” (giving a minor cocaine on multiple occasions in exchange for sex) amounts to causing the child to practice prostitution within the meaning of § 948.08.

Holding1: “Practice” prostitution:

¶15      Payette is charged with violating Wis. Stat. § 948.08,

State v. Jason K. Van Buren, 2008 WI App 26, PFR filed 1/23/08
For Van Buren: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding: Possession of child pornography, § 948.12(1m), requires depiction of real, as opposed to “virtual,” children:

¶6        … Wisconsin Stat. § 948.12(1m) (2005-06) [1] criminalizes the knowing possession of any “photograph … of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” To be convicted under this statute,

State v. Jason K. Van Buren, 2008 WI App 26, PFR filed 1/23/08
For Van Buren: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to request a specific unanimity instruction with respect to juror agreement on which of the identified pictures was both harmful and shown to the victim was not prejudicial:

¶22      We reject this claim because Van Buren has not demonstrated the prejudice necessary to show ineffective assistance of counsel.