On Point: 9. Crimes

State v. Kelley L. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226
For Hauk: David D. Cook

Issue/Holding: State need not charge defendant with both bail jumping and underlying crime in order to obtain conviction for bail jumping (i.e., violating bond by committing crime). ¶¶14-18.

¶19 We therefore conclude that as long as there is evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant intentionally violated his or her bond by committing a crime,

State v. Joseph M. Espinoza, 2002 WI App 51, subsequently overruled by State v. Brent R. Reed, 2005 WI 53
For Espinoza: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a suspect’s mere denial of guilt of the crime under investigation may in and of itself establish probable cause for the separate crime of obstructing, § 946.41(1).

Holding:

¶20.

State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski

Issue/Holding:

¶20 We reject Venema’s argument that a contract has to be in existence in order for a violation to occur under Wis. Stat. § 946.13(1)(a). Such an interpretation is undermined by the plain meaning of the statutory language. The common meaning of “negotiate” is to “communicate with another party for the purpose of reaching an understanding[.]”

State v. Glenn F. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, affirming 2001 WI App 99, 242 Wis. 2d 585, 627 N.W.2d 213
For Schwebke: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue: Whether private, anonymous mailings to several individuals may support prosecution for disorderly conduct.

Holding:

¶26… (T)he plain language of the statute does not specifically require a ‘public’ disturbance. Instead,

State v. Paul K. Shanks, 2002 WI App 93, PFR filed 4/11/02

Issue/Holding: Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for sexual assault of child, notwithstanding inconsistencies and equivocations in complainant’s testimony (court stressing that certain pretrial statements she made did implicate defendant), ¶25. Court also finds evidence sufficient on element of intent: “Intent to become sexually aroused or gratified can be inferred when a man places his finger in the vagina of a two-year-old girl,”

State v. John T. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, affirming unpublished decision
For Trochinski: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether § 948.11(2) is unconstitutional because it doesn’t require proof of knowledge of the age of the person to whom harmful materials are displayed (minority being the sole differentiating factor between noncriminal/protected and criminal conduct.

Holding:

¶39. We conclude that the constitutionality of Wis.

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89
For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding:

¶58. Applying these standards, we agree with the court of appeals that the 28 counts to which Multaler pled were not identical in fact. Although some of the downloaded image files contained multiple images,

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient to establish the intent element, and therefore to support conviction, for contributing to delinquency of a minor, §  948.40(1): “The jury reasonably could infer from the evidence that Williams was aware that his participation in illegal gambling with James D.

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 the element of “disclosure” in § 48.981(7) requires that the recipient not previously have been aware of the confidential information.

Holding: Given the plain meaning of “disclosure,” as defined by various dictionaries, as well as construciton of the term under the Federal Privacy Act:

¶23.

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: The drug tax stamp law, §§ 139.87-139.96,  amended to address State v. Hall, 207 Wis. 2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), doesn’t violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, ¶33-36.