On Point: 3. Evidence

State v. Henry E. Routon, 2007 WI App 178, PFR filed 
For Routon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:  Evidence of conspiracy to manufacture controlled substance is sufficient, notwithstanding that the psilocybe spores that defendant sold were themselves legal, given “abundant evidence from which it is reasonable to infer that Routon marketed the psilocybe spores to persons who wanted to use them for the illegal purpose of growing mushrooms and that this was the predominant part of the business,” ¶30.

State v. Charles E. Dukes, 2007 WI App 175
For Dukes: Robert N. Meyeroff

Issue/Holding:

¶22      Dukes contends that this evidence is insufficient because there was “no physical evidence linking [him] to the drug house and the drugs in the drug house,” because neither his fingerprints nor DNA were on any of the items recovered. He claims he did not live in the apartment, insisting that the evidence shows only that he was found sleeping on the floor where an overnight guest might sleep,

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue/Holding:

¶45      We further reject Stank’s argument that insufficient evidence existed to support the “intent to deliver” element of count two. According to Peasley v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 224, 229, 231-32, 265 N.W.2d 506 (1978), the finder of fact may consider many factors indicative of intent to deliver,

State v. Rickey Eugene Pinkard, 2005 WI App 226
For Pinkard: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Someone holding drugs for another person and planning to return the drugs to that person intends to deliver within the meaning of § 961.41(1m). State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496, 525 N.W.2d 264 (1995) (conspiracy to deliver not supported where only evidence is that seller intended to sell small amount for buyer’s personal use) distinguished,

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue/Holding: Proof of the controlled substance is sufficient where a “presumptive” test is followed by a “confirmatory” one (State v. Dye, 215 Wis. 2d 281, 572 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1997), followed), with the PDR being used to establish the presumption:

¶42      Here,

State v. John L. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Griffin: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Like other jurisdictions, to be found guilty of possession of a controlled substance in Wisconsin, the defendant must have had the substance under his or her control and must have knowingly possessed the substance. See Wis J I-Criminal 920; Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d at 508,

State v. John L. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Griffin: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Griffin was charged with drug possession. In State v. Pozo, 198 Wis.2d 705, 714, 544 N.W.2d 228, 232 (Ct. App. 1995), we stated that although a large amount of cash on an unemployed defendant may be relevant to whether the defendant is selling drugs,

State v. Linda M. Henthorn, 218 Wis. 2d 526, 581 N.W.2d 544 Ct. App. 1998)
For Henthorn: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Viewing the facts most favorable to the prosecution requires us to assume that, despite her denial, Henthorn in fact altered the prescription, changing the refill number from “1” to “11.” She then presented the prescription to the pharmacist but took no further action.