On Point: 9. Crimes

State v. Brent R. Reed, 2005 WI 53, affirming as modified 2004 WI App 98, and overruling State v. Joseph M. Espinoza, 2002 WI App 51
For Reed: David H. Weber

Issue/Holding:

¶21    … Wisconsin JI——Criminal 1766A (2003) accurately sets forth the elements of obstructing an officer based on giving false information to police as follows:

1. 

Ralph Ovadal v. City of Madison, 416 F.3d 351 (7th Cir 2005)

Issue/Holding: Use of disorderly conduct to Overdal’s peaceful protest (displaying large signs on Beltline pedestrian overpass) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him; however, remand required to determine whether the ban was content neutral and narrowly tailored.

State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115
For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas

Issue/Holding: “¶22      … The crime of physical abuse of a child, as applied to the matter at hand, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the following three elements: (1) Kimberly caused bodily harm to Jasmine, (2) Kimberly intentionally caused such harm, and (3) Jasmine had not attained the age of eighteen years at the time of the alleged offense. 

State v. Marketta A. Hughes, 2005 WI App 155, PFR filed
For Hughes: John T. Wasielewski

Issue/Holding:

¶16      We conclude that the plain language of the statute makes clear that a seventeen-year-old employed by a parent to care for the parent’s child can be a person responsible for the welfare of the child. The record reflects that Marketta freely chose to assume responsibility for the welfare of Bryan at her mother’s request.

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

¶15      Here, too, we examine the statute providing for the crime, Wis. Stat. § 948.22(2), to determine the elements of the crime of failure to pay child support, and we focus on the conduct that is prohibited therein.

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Smith’s unsuccessful prior challenge to the court support order bars him, under principles of claim preclusion, from challenging the validity of the order in the present non-support prosecution, ¶¶21-23.

The court invokes this principle as justification for rejection of Smith’s requested jury instruction on whether the issuing court exercised “competent jurisdiction.” Given the court’s holding that this matter is not an element,

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue/Holding:

¶45      We further reject Stank’s argument that insufficient evidence existed to support the “intent to deliver” element of count two. According to Peasley v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 224, 229, 231-32, 265 N.W.2d 506 (1978), the finder of fact may consider many factors indicative of intent to deliver,

State v. Rickey Eugene Pinkard, 2005 WI App 226
For Pinkard: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Someone holding drugs for another person and planning to return the drugs to that person intends to deliver within the meaning of § 961.41(1m). State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496, 525 N.W.2d 264 (1995) (conspiracy to deliver not supported where only evidence is that seller intended to sell small amount for buyer’s personal use) distinguished,

State v. Gwendolyn McGee, 2005 WI App 97
For McGee: Amelia L. Bizarro

Issue/Holding: The disobedient-child defense to a compulsory-attendance charge is an affirmative defense issue to be presented to the fact-finder at trial for resolution (as opposed to disposition by pretrial motion).

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue/Holding: Proof of the controlled substance is sufficient where a “presumptive” test is followed by a “confirmatory” one (State v. Dye, 215 Wis. 2d 281, 572 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1997), followed), with the PDR being used to establish the presumption:

¶42      Here,