On Point blog, page 65 of 89
§ 940.09(2), Defense to Homicide by Intoxicated Use: Death Would Have Occurred Anyway – Admissibility of Evidence of Deceased’s Prior Conduct as Relevant to Intervening Cause
State v. Steven P. Muckerheide, 2007 WI 5, affirming unpublished opinion
For Muckerheide: Mark S. Rosen
Issue/Holding: On a trial of homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle, § 940.09(1)(b), where the defense was that the death would have occurred anyway because the deceased grabbed the wheel just prior to the accident, evidence that the deceased “had, on prior occasions, gestured as if to grab the steering wheel of his father’s vehicle and,
OWI – Appellate Procedure: Finality of Order, State’s Appeal: Collateral Attack on Prior OWI Conviction
State v. Gary J. Knapp, 2007 WI App 273
For Knapp: Cory C. Chirafisi
Issue/Holding: The State may not appeal as a matter of right from a successful collateral attack on a prior OWI conviction, reducing the pending charge from OWI-3rd to -2nd; instead, the State’s remedy is to seek leave to appeal a non-final order:
¶2 A defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction to prevent its use as a penalty enhancer when the prior conviction was obtained in violation of the defendant’s right to counsel.
§ 943.20(1)(d), Theft by Fraud – Civil Tort Law, as Aid to Construction
State v. Dale C. Ploeckelman, 2007 WI App 31
For Ploeckelman: Rand Krueger
Issue/Holding:
¶17 Wisconsin Stat. § 943.20(1)(d) prohibits a type of fraud, which is addressed by both criminal and civil tort law. See State v. Timblin, 2002 WI App 304, ¶31, 259 Wis. 2d 299, 657 N.W.2d 89. While there are no common law crimes, this court has consulted civil tort law as an aid to interpreting the criminal fraud statutes.
Theft by Fraud, § 943.20(1)(d) – Element of Misrepresentation – Satisfied by Failure to Discharge Duty to Disclose
State v. Dale C. Ploeckelman, 2007 WI App 31
For Ploeckelman: Rand Krueger
Issue/Holding:
¶18 A representation can be acts or conduct. See Stecher v. State, 168 Wis. 183, 186, 169 N.W. 287 (1918). In Kaloti Enters., Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 2005 WI 111, 283 Wis. 2d 555, 699 N.W.2d 205, our supreme court laid out the circumstances where a failure to disclose can constitute a representation.
Prostitution, § 944.30(1) – Sufficiency of Evidence – On Charge of Soliciting Intercourse: Offer to Watch Subject Masturbate
State v. David Richard Turnpaugh, 2007 WI App 222
For Turnpaugh: David P. Geraghty, Michael Sosnay
Issue: Given that, as charged, the offense required soliciting “sexual intercourse” (which in turn is defined as “vulvar penetration”), whether the statement “that he was looking for sex and he wanted me to masturbate and that he wanted to watch” is sufficient to support conviction.
Holding:
¶7 Although Turnpaugh said he was “looking for sex,” he limited the scope of that phrase by describing >what he was willing to pay for—watching Ferguson masturbate.
Bail-Jumping, § 946.49(1)(a) – Reversal of Conviction on Which Offense Premised
State v. David Richard Turnpaugh, 2007 WI App 222
For Turnpaugh: David P. Geraghty, Michael Sosnay
Issue/Holding: Reversal of the conviction for the crime on which the bail-jumping “was premised” also requires reversal of the bail-jumping conviction, ¶8.
This isn’t to say that bail-jumping requires >conviction on the underlying offense, see, e.g., State v. Kelley L. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226,
§ 948.02(2) – Elements, in Relation to Defense of Rape By the Child
State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶29 Lackershire’s second argument centers on the somewhat unique posture of this case. A violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2) is generally viewed as a strict liability offense. Unlike other sexual assault offenses, where consent of the victim may be a central issue,
§ 948.025(3) – Prohibition on Multiple-Offenses in Same Proceeding – Remedy
State v. Jeffrey L. Torkelson, 2007 WI App 272, PFR filed 11/30/07
For Torkelson: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding: The remedy for violation of the § 948.025(3) prohibition on charging multiple offenses in the same proceeding is limited to dismissal of the charges (not new trial):
¶26 … Wisconsin Stat. § 948.025(3) simply prohibits the State from charging certain enumerated offenses in the same action as a violation of § 948.025.
Distribution of Harmful Material to Children, § 948.11(2)(am) – Internet Chat Room Communication is “Verbal” Communication, within Statute
State v. Shawn B. Ebersold, 2007 WI App 232
For Ebersold: Lester A. Pines
Issue: Whether message sent via Internet chat room supports prosecution for § 948.11(2)(am), verbally communicating harmful material to child.
Holding:
¶9 In this case, the parties dispute whether Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2)(am) prohibits communication of a harmful description or narrative account to a child via an Internet chat message.
§ 948.31, Interference with Child Custody – Sufficiency of Evidence – Presence of Parent
State v. Isaiah Bowden, 2007 WI App 234
For Bowden: Jason R. Farris
Issue/Holding: Conviction for interference with custody, § 948.31(2), doesn’t require that the child be within the parent’s immediate presence or control:
¶18 The State posits that the withholding method of interference focuses on permission, not being in the parent’s presence. We agree. The withholding method addresses a situation where the person who takes the child has some initial permission to do so.