On Point blog, page 76 of 87
Non-Support, § 948.22 – Statute of Limitations — Support Arrearages, § 893.40 – Accrual upon Entry of Support Judgment
State v. Walter Junior Benjamin, 2003 WI 50, affirming 2002 WI App 89
For Hamilton: Robert A. Ramsdell
Issue/Holding:
¶3. Walter’s case raises questions about the application of statutes of limitations to child support collection actions. The issue presented is whether the State, as an assignee of Walter’s deceased former wife, filed a timely action to collect child support arrearages in 2000.
First Amendment – Overbreadth – Travel Restrictions – “Banishment” from Victim’s County
Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46
Issue/Holding: Banishment from victims’ county, under harassment injunction, § 813.125, upheld:
¶18 Thus, banishment is not a per se constitutional violation. As the previous discussion demonstrates, there is no exact formula for determining whether a geographic restriction is narrowly tailored. Each case must be analyzed on its own facts, circumstances and total atmosphere to determine whether the geographic restriction is narrowly drawn.
§ 904.01, Relevance – Racketeering — Losses Incurred by Defrauded Investors
State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove
Issue/Holding: Evidence of investor losses is relevant to a charge of racketeering, § 946.83. ¶37.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — 2nd-Degree Sexual Assault (by Contact), § 948.02(2) — “Knowing Contact” Insufficient
State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: On a charge of 2nd-degree sexual assault, § 948.02(2), the guilty plea court must ascertain the defendant’s knowledge of the element of intent, namely that the defendant had sexual contact for the purpose of sexual degradation, humiliation, arousal, or gratification. It is insufficient to advise the defendant merely that “knowing contact” was necessary,
Defense of Self – Carrying Concealed Weapon
State v. Tony Nollie, 2002 WI 4, on certification
For Nollie: Erich Straub
Issue: Whether defendant was entitled to assert the privilege of self-defense to the charge of carrying concealed weapon.
Holding:
¶24. To argue self-defense, Nollie’s offer of proof must indicate that he had an actual and reasonable belief of actual or imminent unlawful interference. In this case, there was no actual or imminent unlawful interference to speak of.
§ 941.23, Carrying Concealed Weapon — Constitutionality
State v. Adam S. Gonzales, 2002 WI 59, on certification
For Gonzales: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, § 941.23, is constitutional in light of Article I, Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which creates a right to keep and bear arms.
Holding: Because the crime was committed before the effective date of Article I, Section 25 (November 30,
Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse Reporting, § 48.981(7) — Strict Liability
State v. David C. Polashek, 2002 WI 74, affirming in part and reversing in part, 2001 WI App 130
For Polashek: Nila J. Robinson
Issue: Whether § 48.981(7) is a strict liability offense.
Holding: Where the statute makes no reference to mental state — and none is made here — it is often deemed strict liability. Factors such as seriousness and nature of the offense and legislative history may lead the court to impose a scienter requirement.
Fleeing, § 346.04(3) – Elements
State v. Thomas P. Sterzinger, 2002 WI App 171
For Sterzinger: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue1: Whether fleeing, § 346.04(3) requires proof that the defendant knowingly “interfere(d) with or endanger(ed)” another.
Holding1: Scienter is required, but is limited to a single element — knowingly flee or attempt to elude — and doesn’t extend to “interfere with or endanger.” ¶¶7-11.
Issue2: Whether fleeing,
OWI – Implied Consent – Threat to Revoke Driver’s License Arrest, Not Coercive
Village of Little Chute v. Todd A. Walitalo, 2002 WI App 211, PFR filed 8/1/02
For Walitalo: Ralph A. Kalal
Issue/Holding:
¶11. However, the arresting officer, by reading the informing the accused form, simply stated the truth: If Walitalo refused to submit to a chemical test, his driving privileges would be revoked. This statement did not involve any deceit or trickery, but instead accurately informed Walitalo of his precise legal situation.
OWI – Implied Consent Law – Threat to Use Force
State v. Donald Marshall, 2002 WI App 73, PFR filed 2/28/02
For Marshall: Richard L. Zaffiro
Issue: Whether, after the OWI arrestee refused consent for a blood draw, the police could then obtain “consent” for the draw by threatening to use physical force.
Holding: Marshall’s argument that § 343.305(9)(a), by providing the exclusive police option for refusal, bans such a threat has been rejected by State v.