On Point blog, page 2 of 4
Stephen McFadden v. United States, USSC No. 14-378, cert. granted 1/16/15
Whether, to convict a defendant of distribution of a controlled substance analogue, the government must prove the defendant knew that the substance constituted a controlled substance analog, as held by the Second, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, but rejected by the Fourth and Fifth Circuits.
Court of appeals orders new trial due to impact of evidence relating to charges dismissed during trial
State v. Michael C. Hess, 2014AP268-CR, District 3, 11/11/14 (not recommended for publication); case activity
While the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Hess possessed methamphetamine, Hess is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice because the verdict may have been influenced by evidence offered to proved drugged-driving charges that were dismissed during trial.
Sufficiency of Evidence: Standard of Review – Possession with Intent to Deliver; Right to Jury Trial – Apprendi – Harmless Error
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2012 WI 91, reversing in part, affirming in part unpublished decision; case activity
Standard of Review: Sufficiency of Evidence
¶29 We understand Smith’s central argument regarding the standard of review on the evidentiary question to be summed up in the proposition that a jury verdict of guilt[9] must be reversed on appeal if “[t]he inferences that may be drawn from the circumstantial evidence are as consistent with innocence as with guilt.”
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2010AP1192-CR, rev. granted 12/1/11
on review of unpublished decision; for Smith: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post
Sufficiency of Evidence (Possession with Intent to Deliver) – Circumstantial Evidence Standard of Review /
Stipulation (Offense Element) – Right to Jury Trial
Issues (from Smith’s PFR):
1. The Trial Evidence Was Insufficient to Support Smith’s Conviction of Possessing a Controlled Substance (THC) With Intent to Deliver,
Delivery of Controlled Substance – Sufficiency of Evidence; Joinder
State v. James Thomas Morton, 2010AP2041-CR, District 1, 6/28/11
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Morton: Carl W. Chessir; case activity
Evidence that Morton told an undercover officer to put her money on the kitchen table, and that “what you came for is right here,” supported conviction for delivery of the controlled substance the officer found on the table.
¶13 “[A] constructive transfer need not be hand to hand.
Possession with Intent to Deliver (THC) – Sufficiency of Evidence, PTAC; Stipulation – Element – Right to Jury Trial
State v. Roshawn Smith, 2010AP1192-CR, District 3, 5/26/11, aff’d and rev’d, 2012 WI 91
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 2012 WI 91; for Smith: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held sufficient to support guilty verdict, § 961.41(1m)(h)5., ptac: after agreeing to accept packages (which turned out to contained marijuana),
Multiplicity: § 948.40(1) (4)(a) as Lesser of § 940.02(2)(a); Contributing to Delinquency with Death as Result; Instructions – First-Degree Reckless Homicide; Prosecutorial Misconduct – “Haseltine”
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2010 WI 130, affirming 2009 WI App 181; for Patterson: David R. Karpe; Patterson BiC; State Resp.; Reply
Multiplicity – § 948.40(1) (4)(a) as Lesser Offense of § 940.02(2)(a)
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor with death as a result, § 948.40(1), (4)(a) is not a lesser offense of first-degree reckless homicide,
Town of Grand Chute v. Michael J. Kettner, 2009AP2369, District III, 4/20/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); pro se; Resp. Br.
Controlled Substance – Prescribed by Out-of-State Doctor
Possession of marijuana, prescribed by California doctor under laws of that state, may be prosecuted in Wisconsin: though an exception exists for possession obtained by prescription from a “practitioner,” § 961.41(3g), the practitioner must be licensed in Wisconsin, § 961.01(19)(a). ¶10.
Well, the court’s conclusion might be grammatically sound,
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 61, PFR 10/30/09
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),
Possession of Controlled Substance – Sufficiency of Evidence, Possession Element – Presence of Drugs in Body
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161
For Patterson: David R. Karpe
Issue/Holding:
¶25 There is no dispute that testing revealed that Tanya S. had Oxycodone in her system at the relevant time. However, as Patterson argues, the presence of drugs in someone’s system, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. SeeState v.