On Point: 3. Domestic abuse injun.

State v. Thomas Louis Giegler, 2021AP952-CR, 11/2/21, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Unbelievable. A jury convicted Geigler of knowing violation of a TRO. The court of appeals now reverses the conviction because the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It remands the case with instructions for the circuit court to enter a judgment of acquittal on that charge.

State v. Michael K. Lorentz, 2018AP1515, 10/1/19 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The state charged Lorentz with violating four injunctions. One count was brought under Wis. Stat. § 813.12(8)(a) (for violating a domestic abuse injunction regarding his ex-wife) and three under Wis. Stat. § 813.122(11) (for violating three child abuse injunctions–one for each of their three children). Each injunction required Lorentz to “avoid” the “residence” the mother and children shared.

State v. Timothy Jon Eloe, 2011AP1970-CR, District 2, 2/29/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Eloe: John C. Orth; case activity

¶5        To be sufficient, a criminal complaint need only be minimally adequate in setting forth essential facts establishing probable cause.  State v. Adams, 152 Wis. 2d 68, 73, 447 N.W.2d 90 (Ct. App. 1989).  Further, the adequacy of the complaint is to be evaluated “in a common sense rather than a hypertechnical manner.”  Id.

State v. James M. Johnson, 2011AP2374-CR, District 2, 2/8/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); pro se; case activity

Evidence – Johnson left voicemail message on complainant’s work phone – held sufficient to sustain conviction for violating temporary restraining order.

¶8        Regarding the nature of the voice mail message and its violation of the TRO, the TRO itself states that Johnson is to “avoid contact that harasses or intimidates the petitioner,” contact defined as including contact by phone.  

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,

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,

Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46

Issue/Holding: Banishment from victims’ county, under harassment injunction, § 813.125, upheld:

¶18 Thus, banishment is not a per se constitutional violation. As the previous discussion demonstrates, there is no exact formula for determining whether a geographic restriction is narrowly tailored. Each case must be analyzed on its own facts, circumstances and total atmosphere to determine whether the geographic restriction is narrowly drawn.

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2002 WI App 105, PFR filed 5/10/02
For Sveum: Ian A.J. Pit

Issue/Holding: Violation of harassment injunction isn’t lesser offense of harassment, each requiring proof of distinct element. ¶¶23-28. (Court stressing, in particular, that for harassment defendant need only be “subject” to injunction but not actually violate it. ¶25.)

Annette Petrowsky v. Brad Krause, 223 Wis. 2d 32, 588 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Krause: Russell D. Bohach
For Petrowsky: Thomas McAdams, Pro Bono Project

Issue/Holding:

The issue on appeal is who constitutes a “household member” under the domestic abuse statute. This involves the construction of a statute. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law that appellate courts review without deference to the trial court.