On Point: J. Ch. 948: Against children

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. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶29      Lackershire’s second argument centers on the somewhat unique posture of this case. A violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2) is generally viewed as a strict liability offense. Unlike other sexual assault offenses, where consent of the victim may be a central issue,

State v. Jeffrey L. Torkelson, 2007 WI App 272, PFR filed 11/30/07
For Torkelson: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: The remedy for violation of the § 948.025(3) prohibition on charging multiple offenses in the same proceeding is limited to dismissal of the charges (not new trial):

¶26   … Wisconsin Stat. § 948.025(3) simply prohibits the State from charging certain enumerated offenses in the same action as a violation of § 948.025.

State v. Shawn B. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232
For Ebersold: Lester A. Pines

Issue: Whether message sent via Internet chat room supports prosecution for § 948.11(2)(am), verbally communicating harmful material to child.

Holding:

¶9    In this case, the parties dispute whether Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(am) prohibits communication of a harmful description or narrative account to a child via an Internet chat message.

State v. Isaiah Bowden, 2007 WI App 234
For Bowden: Jason R. Farris

Issue/Holding: Conviction for interference with custody, § 948.31(2), doesn’t require that the child be within the parent’s immediate presence or control:

¶18   The State posits that the withholding method of interference focuses on permission, not being in the parent’s presence. We agree. The withholding method addresses a situation where the person who takes the child has some initial permission to do so.

State v. Thomas A. Nommensen, 2007 WI App 224
For Nommensen: Anthony L. O’Malley

Issue/Holding: Although charges of repeated sexual assault, § 948.025(1) were the same in law, they were different in fact because they :

¶8        Charged offenses are not multiplicitous if the facts are either separate in time or of a significantly different nature. Id. at 749. “The appropriate question is whether these acts allegedly committed … are so significantly different in fact that they may properly be denominated separate crimes although each would furnish a factual underpinning or a substitute legal element for the violation of the same statute.” Id.

State v. Tyrone Booker, 2006 WI 79, reversing 2005 WI App 182
For Booker: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue: Whether conviction under § 948.11, exposing child to harmful materials, can be sustained where the jury heard the children’s and a detective’s descriptions of the videotape but did not themselves view it.

Holding:

¶25      When we view the evidence in this case most favorably to the State,

State v. Quentrell E. Williams, 2006 WI App 212
For Williams: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Because “recklessly” causing harm to a child, § 948.03(b), is determined solely from an objective point of view, evidence related to whether the actor “subjectively thought his [disciplinary action] was reasonable parental discipline” is irrelevant, including evidence of how the actor was him or herself disciplined as a child,

State v. Dennis Charles Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263
For Schulpius: Bridget Boyle

Issue/Holding:

¶10      … The subsection has two elements:  (1) the defendant must have done something that shows that he or she had, as phrased by § 948.075(1), the “intent to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse” with someone whom he or she believed, or had reason to believe, was younger than sixteen,

State v. David R. Kaster, 2006 WI App 72, PFR filed 4/26/06; prior appeal: 2003 WI App 105
For Kaster: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Kaster’s prior appeal held that school staff need not be under contract for purposes of § 948.095; providing voluntary services at the time of the alleged assault suffices. This prior holding did not, the court now resolves, expand the scope of the statute so as to deprive Kaster of fair notice of the proscribed conduct:

¶7        Here,