On Point: 9. Crimes

State v. Ibrahim Begicevic, 2004 WI App 57
For Begicevic: Donna J. Kuchler

Issue: Whether reading the “Informing the Accused” form in English to a non-English speaking driver was an unreasonable way of conveying required implied consent warnings.

Holding:

¶21. Kennedy did not attempt to obtain an interpreter. When Kennedy read the Informing the Accused in English, Gasse did not translate the form verbatim nor did he make an effort to explain the rights in the form in German to Begicevic.

State v. Edward Leon Jackson, 2004 WI App 190, PFR filed 10/15/04
For Jackson: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶2 In 1996, Jackson admitted to his role in a plan to fire bomb a Milwaukee police officer’s home. Jackson and two other men conspired to fire bomb the house, enabling two others to shoot people fleeing from the building.

State v. Brandon L. Mason, 2004 WI App 176
For Dawson: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The felony murder statute, § 940.03 (1999-2000), contains characteristics suggestive of both penalty enhancers (it adds a specified term to the maximum penalty applicable to the underlying crime), ¶15, and also substantive offenses (it is located in a chapter that defines substantive offenses; and it incorporates the elements of offenses located elsewhere),

State v. Eugene M. Perkins, 2004 WI App 213, PFR filed 11/9/04
For Perkins: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue Whether expert testimony is required to establish the victim’s mental illness, an element of § 940.225(2)(c).

Holding: This element may be shown through credible lay opinion testimony:

¶17 Here, the State had to prove four things: (1) that Perkins had sexual contact or intercourse with H.V.;

State v. John F. Powers, 2004 WI App 156
For Powers: Marcus J. Berghahn; John D. Hyland

Issue/Holding: An employee of the Tomah VA Medical Center is not an employee of an in-patient treatment facility within the meaning of §§ 940.225(2)(g), 940.295(2)(b), (c), (h), (k), and 50.135(1), because the Center is not licensed or approved by DHFS, ¶11, and the pending charge under that section must therefore be dismissed,

State v. Louis D. Thomas, 2004 WI App 115, PFR filed 6/17/04
For Thomas: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: Wis. Const. art. I, § 25 (“right to keep and bear arms”) did not effectively repeal § 941.29 (felon in possession). ¶¶7-12.

Issue/Holding: § 941.29 is neither vague, ¶¶14-18, nor overbroad, ¶¶19-23.

Issue/Holding: § 941.29 doesn’t violate equal protection, ¶¶24-29. (Comparative classes: felons / misdemeanants;

State v. Charles Chvala, 2004 WI App 53, affirmed, 2005 WI 30
For Chvala: James A. Olson, et. al,  Lawton & Cates

Holdings:

• Section 946.12(3), which proscribes exercising a discretionary power inconsistent with the duties of the defendant’s office (in this instance, a state legislator) is not vague. Though those “duties” aren’t identified in any specific statute,

State v. Wyatt Daniel Henning, 2003 WI App 54, reversed on other grounds, 2004 WI 89
For Henning: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶25. We appreciate that State v. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226, 257 Wis. 2d 579, 652 N.W.2d 393, review denied, 2002 WI 121, 257 Wis. 2d 122, 653 N.W.2d 893 (Wis.

State ex rel. Michael J. Thorson v. Schwarz, 2004 WI 96, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Thorson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Someone being held in connection with ch. 980 proceedings is not subject to the escape statute, § 946.42, for absconding from that custody: “¶28 … (T)here is no incorporation of Chapter 980 into Wis. Stat. § 946.42.

State v. John S. Provo, 2004 WI App 97, PFR filed 5/7/04
For Provo: William H. Gergen

Issue/Holding: “… We hold that § 948.07 requires only that the defendant cause the child to go into any vehicle, building, room, or secluded place with the intent to engage in illicit conduct, but not that the child necessarily be first separated from ‘the public,’” ¶1. That is,