On Point: 9. Crimes

State v. Luke T. Nirmaier, 2011AP1355-CR, District 3, 12/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Nirmaier: Michael M. Rajek; case activity

The odor of alcohol on Nirmaier following a traffic accident resulting in substantial bodily injury triggered the implied consent law, notwithstanding absence of probable cause to arrest at that point:

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 343.305(3) outlines different scenarios in which an officer may invoke the implied consent law and request a chemical test of an individual’s breath,

State v. Cedric O Clacks, 2011AP338-CR, District 4, 12/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clacks: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to prove contested, fourth element of identity theft (intentional representation user of personal identification document of another authorized to use it), § 943.201(2)(a) as party to the crime.

¶15      Specifically, Clacks contends that handing the credit card to a sales clerk to make a purchase and signing the electronic credit card slip cannot,

on certification by-pass of court of appeals; for Ziegler: Christopher William Rose; case activity; prior post

Interfering with Custody, § 948.31(2) 

Issue (from Certification): 

In State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, 306 Wis. 2d 393, 742 N.W.2d 332, we analyzed Wis. Stat. § 948.31(2), which deals with criminal charges for interference with custody of children.  There,

State v. Tiffany Michelle Flowers, 2011AP1757-CR, District 1, 12/13/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Flowers: Daniel A. Necci; case activity

Conviction for carrying a concealed weapon (gun in a purse, in a car), § 941.23, upheld against second amendment challenge to facial validity. Court rejects strict scrutiny test. (The statute was amended by 2011 Wis. Act 35, §§ 50-55, to allow among other things conceal-carry for licensees;

State v. Jason L. Decorah, 2011AP662-CR, District 4, 12/8/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Decorah: Corey C. Chirafisi; case activity

Collateral attack on a prior OWI used as a current enhancer, on the ground Decorah didn’t understand the range of penalties therefore didn’t validly waive counsel. Decorah prevailed below, and the court affirms on this State’s appeal:

¶3        Decorah’s collateral attack is based on his contention that,

on review of unpublished decision; for Smith: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; prior post

Sufficiency of Evidence (Possession with Intent to Deliver) – Circumstantial Evidence Standard of Review / 
Stipulation (Offense Element) – Right to Jury Trial

Issues (from Smith’s PFR): 

1. The Trial Evidence Was Insufficient to Support Smith’s Conviction of Possessing a Controlled Substance (THC) With Intent to Deliver,

State v. Michael Perzel, III, 2011AP1190-CR, District 4, 12/1/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Perzel: Waring R. Fincke; case activity

Blood test results are admissible without expert testimony to reflect a person’s bac at the time in question (in this OWI-related prosecution, at the time Perzel was driving), so long as the blood was drawn by a person enumerated in § 343.305(5)(d). One such person is a “registered nurse.”

City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,

State v. Jeffrey Steinhorst, 2011AP1360-CR, District 4, 11/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Steinhorst: Steven Cohen; case activity

Steinhorst made a prima facie showing that he did not validly waive counsel in a prior OWI case; therefore, he is entitled to a hearing at which the State must prove proper waiver, by clear and convincing evidence, else the prior conviction may not be used to enhance his current case.

court of appeals certification, affirmed 2012 WI 73; for Ziegler: Christopher William Rose; case activity

Interfering with Custody, § 948.31(2) 

Issue certified: Whether the court of appeals’ prior interpretation of § 948.31(2) to require “initial permission” from the parent should be overruled, State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis.