On Point blog, page 60 of 87
Unauthorized Use of Personal Identifying Materials, § 943.201(2) – Generally, Continuing Offense<
State v. George W. Lis, Sr., 2008 WI App 82
For Lis: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶7 As relevant here, a person violates Wis. Stat. § 943.201(2) when he or she
intentionally uses, attempts to use, or possesses with intent to use any personal identifying information … of an individual … (a) To obtain credit, money, goods, services, employment, or any other thing of value or benefit.
§ 943.201(2), Unauthorized Use of Personal Identifying Materials – Application to Closing of Fraudulently Opened Accounts: Liability Terminates
State v. George W. Lis, Sr., 2008 WI App 82
For Lis: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶1 … The key question in this appeal is whether Lis’s crimes continued after the fraudulent accounts he opened were closed. We conclude they did not. ……
¶8 In this case, Lis’s offense continued into 2003 and 2004 only if he received a “thing of value or benefit” after the accounts were closed in 2000.
§ 943.34, Receiving Stolen Property: Venue
State v. Kenneth W. Lippold, 2008 WI App 130, PFR filed 8/18/08
For Lippold: Thomas J. Nitschke
Issue/Holding: On a charge of receiving stolen property, venue may rest in the county where the underlying theft occurred (and, provable by circumstantial rather than direct evidence):
¶16 Extrapolating from the holding in Swinson, we conclude that because the crime of receiving stolen property requires more than two acts,
Bail-Jumping, § 946.49(1)(a) – “Release from Custody” – Cash and Recognizance Bonds Support Bail Jumping
State v. Travis S. Dewitt, 2008 WI App 134, PFR filed 8/19/08
For Dewitt: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether someone simultaneously held under personal recognizance and cash bonds can be guilty of bail jumping for acts committed in the jail.
Holding:
¶12 … Wis. Stat. § 946.49 provides that someone who “having been released from custody under [Wis.
Using Computer to Facilitate Child Sex-Crime, § 948.075(3) – Element of Act “Other Than … Computerized Communication”
State v. Eric T. Olson, 2008 WI App 171
For Olson: Byron C. Lichstein
Issue/Holding: The “act other than element” of § 948.075(3) isn’t satisfied by either transmission of live video of the shirtless defendant, or by his prior sexual encounters with others he met on-line:
¶11 Accordingly, we read the statute to require that, before the State may obtain a conviction under WIS. STAT.
§ 948.07(6), Enticement — Causing Child to Enter Room for Purpose of Giving Controlled Substance
State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue/Holding: Providing cocaine to a minor in exchange for sex supported plea-based conviction for enticement within § 948.07(6), ¶23.
§ 948.08, Causing Child to Practice Prostitution – Repeated Sex Acts in Exchange for Cocaine
State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro
Issue: Whether repeated “dope dating” (giving a minor cocaine on multiple occasions in exchange for sex) amounts to causing the child to practice prostitution within the meaning of § 948.08.
Holding1: “Practice” prostitution:
¶15 Payette is charged with violating Wis. Stat. § 948.08,
Possession of Child Pornography, § 948.12(1m) – Elements – Depiction of “Real” Children Necessary
State v. Jason K. Van Buren, 2008 WI App 26, PFR filed 1/23/08
For Van Buren: Waring R. Fincke
Issue/Holding: Possession of child pornography, § 948.12(1m), requires depiction of real, as opposed to “virtual,” children:
¶6 … Wisconsin Stat. § 948.12(1m) (2005-06) [1] criminalizes the knowing possession of any “photograph … of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” To be convicted under this statute,
Possession of Child Pornography, § 948.12(1m) – Jury Instructions – Unanimity: Agreement as to Which Picture Was Shown and Was Harmful
State v. Jason K. Van Buren, 2008 WI App 26, PFR filed 1/23/08
For Van Buren: Waring R. Fincke
Issue/Holding: Counsel’s failure to request a specific unanimity instruction with respect to juror agreement on which of the identified pictures was both harmful and shown to the victim was not prejudicial:
¶22 We reject this claim because Van Buren has not demonstrated the prejudice necessary to show ineffective assistance of counsel.
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,