On Point blog, page 22 of 87
Blood draw by paramedic was okay
State v. Steven W. Heath, 2014AP2466-CR, District 4, 9/15/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Heath challenges the blood draw evidence in his OWI prosecution, claiming that the paramedic who did the draw wasn’t a “person acting under the direction of a physician” as required by § 343.305(5)(b) and that the method and manner of the blood draw was not constitutionally reasonable. The court of appeals rejects his claims.
Toxicologist could give opinion about impairment
State v. Lory F. Kerk, 2015AP2608-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court didn’t err in allowing the state to elicit testimony from its expert toxicologist that Kerk was impaired by the amount of alcohol and prescription drugs found in her blood.
Court had jurisdiction over OWI mistakenly charged as a criminal offense
State v. Timothy A. Giese, 2015AP1838-CR, District 3, 9/13/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The supreme court’s recent decision in City of Eau Claire v. Booth Britton, 2016 WI 65, disposes of Giese’s claim that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over a mistakenly charged second-offense OWI.
Grabbing, pushing, blocking exit sufficient to support disorderly conduct conviction
State v. Kerry A. Siekierzynski, 2015AP2350-CR, District 3, 9/7/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Siekierzynski’s acts during an angry, emotional confrontation with his ex-wife over child visitation were enough to support the guilty verdict for disorderly conduct.
“Twilight zone” between great bodily harm and bodily harm is for jury
State v. Anthony Darnell Davis, 2016 WI App 73; case activity (including briefs)
Davis argued that he could not be convicted of recklessly causing “great bodily harm” to a child where the injuries he inflicted were bone fractures which, by statute, qualify as only “substantial bodily harm.” See Wis. Stat. § 939.22(38). The court of appeals disagreed.
Findings of fact doom challenge to refusal
State v. S.G./Waukesha County v. S.G., 2015AP2138 & 2015AP2139, District 2, 8/24/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
S.G. challenges the revocation of her driver’s license for refusal, arguing the arresting officer didn’t sufficiently convey the implied consent warnings to her. She also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for her OWI conviction. Neither challenge succeeds.
Child neglect, disorderly conduct convictions withstand challenge
State v. Ginger M. Breitzman, 2015AP1610-CR, District 1, 8/16/16 (not recommended for publication), petition for review granted 3/13/2017; case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals rebuffs Breitzman’s arguments that there was insufficient evidence to convict her of child neglect and disorderly conduct and that her trial lawyer was ineffective.
Facts established probable cause to arrest and were sufficient to support guilty verdict
Village of Bayside v. Amber E. Schoeller, 2016AP256 & 2016AP257, District 1, 8/9/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The circuit court’s factual findings—which Schoeller doesn’t argue are clearly erroneous—doom her claims that the officer didn’t have probable cause to arrest her and that the evidence isn’t sufficient to prove she’s guilty of OWI.
Court of appeals instructs defense on grammar and punctuation, proper interpretation of 939.617 depends on it
State v. Markus S. Holcomb, 2016 WI App 70; case activity (including briefs)
“While sentence diagramming may be the bane of fifth graders everywhere, it is the trick of the trade in statutory construction.” Slip op. ¶9. “Punctuation too is important. . . . It can be the difference between ‘Let’s eat, Grandma!’ and ‘Let’s eat Grandma!'” ¶12. So begins today’s lesson on the proper way to read §939.617, which provides minimum sentences for certain child sex offenses.
It’s not coercive to force driver to choose between a blood draw or license revocation that is legally unsustainable
State v. Adam M. Blackman, 2016 WI App 69; petition for review granted 6/15/16, reversed, 2017 WI 77; case activity (including briefs)
A recent amendment to Wisconsin’s implied consent law authorizes law enforcement to request a blood, breath, or urine sample from a driver involved in an accident that causes death or great bodily harm even if there is no evidence that the driver was impaired by alcohol or a controlled substance. §343.305(3)(ar)2. If the driver refuses, his license is revoked, but he may request a refusal hearing within 10 days. §343.305(9)(a). But as §343.305(9)(a)5, the refusal hearing statute, is currently written the State could not prevail.