On Point blog, page 2 of 4
Violating domestic abuse injunction — Sufficiency of the evidence
State v. Kenney Wayne Madlock, 2012AP1439-CR, District 1, 1/15/13
Court of appeals decision (1-judge; not eligible for publication); case activity
Violating domestic abuse injunction — Sufficiency of the evidence
The evidence was sufficient to support conviction at a bench trial for violating an injunction that required Madlock to avoid the residence of T.M., who had asked for the injunction. T.M. testified that Madlock drove down the street while she was outside her house,
Illegal Possession Prescription Drug – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Troy A. Keys, 2011AP550-CR, District 3, 8/30/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Keys: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity
Evidence held insufficient to support scienter element of illegal possession of prescription drug, § 450.11(7)(h). A pill container, container 2 Citalopram pills, were found on Keys’ coffee table The court rejects the State’s argument that the jury reasonably could have inferred Keys’
State v. Eric A., 2010AP1161, District 3, 3/1/11
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Eric A.: pro se; case activity
Expungement – Delinquency Adjudication, § 938.355(4m)(a)
Denial of petition for expungement of repeated sexual assault of child adjudication is affirmed.
¶8 Here, the court determined that the offense was too serious, and it would be against public policy, to permit expungement. The court’s order stated society would be harmed by granting expungement.
State v. Michael S. Henderson, Milwaukee Co. Circ. Ct. No. 10CF1101
circuit court decision (Judge Richard Sankovitz); for Henderson: Paul A. Ksicinski, SPD, Milwaukee Trial
Illegal Voting, § 12.13(1)(a) – Voting Rights Acts
Henderson is charged with illegal voting because he allegedly voted notwithstanding his status as a felon still under supervision (which would made him ineligible to vote). He raises as a defense the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 45 U.S.C. § 1973(a): the Act bars disenfranchisement “on account of race”
Jury Instructions; Ineffective Assistance; Record on Appeal; Self-Defense
State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2833-CR, District 1, 10/13/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Lesser-Included Instruction – Battery
Harris not entitled to instruction on simple battery as lesser included of substantial battery; the medical evidence established without contradiction that the victim suffered a fractured rib, therefore no reasonable jury could have acquitted him of the greater offense,
Sex Offender Registration – Measuring Age Disparity
State v. Matthew C. Parmley, 2010 WI App 79; for Parmley: Christopher M. Eippert; BiC: Resp.; Reply
A sex offender may obtain an exception from the registration requirement 0f § 301.45(1m)2, if “the person had not attained the age of 19 years and was not more than 4 years older or not more than 4 years younger than the child.” At the time of his offense,
Misconduct in Public Office, § 946.12(3) – Venue, § 971.19(12)
State v. Scott R. Jensen, 2010 WI 38, reversing 2009 WI App 26, prior history omitted; for Jensen: Robert H. Friebert; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶1 … The issue presented is whether Waukesha County Circuit Court is the proper venue for Jensen’s trial because it is the “circuit court for the county where the defendant resides”
Failure to Comply with Sex Offender Registration, § 301.45
State v. James W. Smith, 2010 WI 16, affirming 2009 WI App 16; for Smith: Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate
The § 301.45 reporting requirement applicable to any violation of false imprisonment of a minor not the defendant’s child is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in protecting the public, particularly children, ¶¶27-36.
Keep in mind that Smith challenged the statute as applied to him.
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09(2)(am)1 – Elements – Expectation of Privacy: Consensually Nude in Another’s Presence
State v. Mark T. Jahnke, 2009 WI App 4
For Jahnke: Harold L. Harlowe; Michael J. Herbert
Issue/Holding: Secretly videotaping another without consent, though that person knowingly exposes herself nude to the video taper, supports criminal liability:
¶6 Jahnke contends that the facts do not support the third element, the expectation of privacy element. He reasons that his girlfriend had no reasonable expectation of privacy because she knowingly and consensually exposed her nude body to him while he was secretly videotaping her.
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09(2)(am)1 – Elements, Generally
State v. Mark T. Jahnke, 2009 WI App 4
For Jahnke: Harold L. Harlowe; Michael J. Herbert
Issue/Holding:
¶5 Jahnke entered a plea to the recording crime defined in Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(am)1. That crime has four elements:
(1) the defendant recorded a person in the nude;(2) the recording is without the nude person’s knowledge and consent;
(3) the depicted person was nude in a circumstance in which he or she had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”;