On Point: 9. Crimes

Winnebago County v. Anastasia G. Christenson, 2012AP1189, District 2, 10/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Probable Cause – PBT, § 343.303

¶11      At the time Putzer administered the PBT to Christenson, he was aware that she had driven her car into a ditch, smelled of “intoxicating beverages” around midnight on Saturday night/Sunday morning (a day and time that increases suspicion of alcohol consumption),

County of Fond du Lac v. Nancy C. Bush, 2012AP1486, District 2, 10/31/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Under the implied consent law, a motorist must, when properly requested to submit to a chemical test, answer “promptly,” State v. Neitzel, 95 Wis. 2d 191, 205, 289 N.W.2d 828 (1980), else failure to respond will be construed as refusal.

on review of published decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point): 

1. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction for conspiracy-theft by fraud, in that: no conspirator expressly made a false representation; and in any event, Steffes joined the conspiracy after it had already been set in motion.

2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction for a felony, in that the evidence failed to establish theft of at least $2,500.

State v. Frederick L. Lucht, 2011AP1644-CR, District 4, 9/27/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The record supports the existence of an agreement between Lucht and another to commit the crime of first-degree intentional homicide.

¶28      Lucht refers us to cases standing for propositions that a conspiracy cannot be based on a mere “agreement to negotiate,” see United States v.

State v. William R. Hartman, 2011AP622, District 4, 9/20/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

OWI – Refusal Hearing – Raising Challenge to Lawfulness of Stop

Refusal hearing supports litigation of lawfulness of stop; State v. Anagnos, 2012 WI 64, ¶42, 341 Wis. 2d 576, 815 N.W.2d 675, followed:

 ¶14      Accordingly, we reject the State’s contention that Hartman improperly raised the issue of reasonable suspicion at the refusal hearing.   

State v. Robert B. Sonnenberg, 2012AP1025, District 2, 9/19/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain Sonnenberg’s conviction for OWI-1st. He admitted that he drank some indeterminate amount of alcohol before his car had a flat tire and then drank more on the side of the road; after an officer encountered him, he performed poorly on FSTs and his blood draw resulted in a .184 BAC.

State v. Reginald Scott Williams, 2011AP1379-CR, District 1, 9/18/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Williams drove at an excessive speed (30+ over the limit), and crashed into another car, resulting in death and serious injuries. He pleaded no contest to one count of homicide by negligent use, § 940.10 and one count of reckless driving / GBH, § 346.62(4). At the time of the pleas,

State v. Frederick J. Scott, 2012AP533-CR, District 3, 9/11/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

The threshold for illegal alcohol concentration is reduced from .08 to .02 for drivers who have at least 3 prior qualifying convictions. Scott had three priors, thus was subject to arrest and prosecution for driving with a PAC of .03. However, prior convictions may be collaterally attacked if obtained in violation of the right to counsel,

State v. Lisa M. Arentz, 2011AP2307-CR / State v. Eric R. Hendricks, 2012AP243-CR, District 2, 9/5/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity (Arentz; Hendricks)

Criminal OWI prosecution is premised on, and a resulting sentence enhanced by, a prior civil-forfeiture OWI conviction (which does not itself require unanimous jury verdict upon proof beyond reasonable doubt). Arentz and Hendricks raise the same arguments: the elements of the underlying civil forfeiture must be proved to the jury beyond reasonable at the criminal trial;

State v. Scott E. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 113 (recommended for publication); case activity

Adequate Provocation Defense, §§ 939.44(1),  940.01(2)(a) – Test for Admissibility

The “some evidence,” rather than Schmidt’s proposed less stringent “mere relevance,” standard controls admissibility of evidence of adequate provocation that would reduce first- to second-degree intentional homicide:

¶9        When applying the some evidence standard, “the circuit court must determine whether a reasonable construction of the evidence will support the defendant’s theory viewed in the most favorable light it will reasonably admit of from the standpoint of the accused.”  [State v.