On Point blog, page 3 of 4
Obstructing or Resisting Warden, § 29.951 – Single Crime with Multiple Modes of Commission – Unanimity not Required
State v. David A. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131, affirmed, 2010 WI 84, ¶2 n. 3
For Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Unanimity is not required on whether the defendant “resisted” or “obstructed” a warden on a charge of violating § 29.951, ¶¶21-42.
All the rest is commentary. (Translated: the court undertakes a lengthy analysis that won’t be summarized.) Of particular note,
Securities Fraud, § 551.41(2) – Elements – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding:
¶29 The State was required to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict LaCount of securities fraud. First, the prosecution had to establish that LaCount sold Wills a security, here, an investment contract. Wis. Stat. § 551.41. Second, the prosecution had to prove that LaCount made an “untrue statement of a material fact or [omitted] to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,
Securities Fraud, § 551.41(2) – Promissory Note
State v. Kevin F. McGuire, 2007 WI App 139, PFR filed 6/4/07
For McGuire: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether a promissory note is a “security” within the meaning of § 551.02(13(a).
Holding: The 4-factor test of In Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 66-67 (1990) applies: “1) the motivations of a reasonable seller and buyer; (2) the note’s ‘plan of distribution’;
§ 125.075(1), Procuring Alcohol for Minor Resulting in Death – Element of Scienter
State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch
Issue: Whether the scienter element of § 125.075(1) requires proof that the defendant know that a particular individual is under the legal drinking age.
Holding:
¶11 Wille makes much of the fact that Wis. Stat. § 125.075(1) refers several times to the victim in the singular: “to a person under 18 years of age”;
§ 125.075(1), Procuring Alcohol for Minor Resulting in Death – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch
Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient under § 125.075(1) to show that the defendant had the underage victim had consumed alcohol provided by the defendant at a party for which the defendant supplied beer and sold red cups for the purpose of obtaining the beer (the victim became intoxicated and later died in a traffic accident after leaving the party).
§ 125.075(1), Procuring Alcohol for Minor Resulting in Death – Elements – State Need not Prove Victim’s Level of Intoxication
State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch
Issue/Holding:
¶31 … The State was under no obligation to establish the level of alcohol in Meshak’s blood at the time of the accident, or even to prove that he was intoxicated to the degree required for a conviction under Wis. Stat. § 346.63 (“Operating under influence of intoxicant or other drug”).
§ 125.075(1), Procuring Alcohol for Minor Resulting in Death – Jury Instructions: Causation
State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch
Issue/Holding:
¶24 Wille claims the trial court erred in instructing jurors that, to find Wille guilty of the charged crime, Meshak’s consumption of alcohol provided by Wille was required to be “a” substantial factor in causing Meshak’s death, instead of “the” substantial factor, as Wille requested.
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09 – Sufficiency of Notice of Element of “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”
State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06
For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue: Whether the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” in § 942.09 is unconstitutionally vague, where the conduct involved videotaping women in a second-floor bathroom in their own house.
Holding:
¶39 However, this court and the supreme court have already concluded in several different contexts that the term “reasonable” does not render a statute unconstitutionally vague.
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09 – Element of “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy,” Construction
State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06
For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue/Holding:
¶19 The phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” is not defined in Wis. Stat. § 942.09, nor are the individual words. However, the words “expectation of privacy” have a common meaning that can be ascertained with reference to a standard dictionary.
…¶
21 If we apply the common meanings of “expectation” and “privacy” and the well-established meaning of the term “reasonable,” Wis.
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09 – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06
For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under § 942.09 for videotaping into a bathroom notwithstanding that the window was open, under the following circumstances:
¶53 Applying this standard, we conclude the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Nelson guilty of violating Wis.