On Point blog, page 80 of 89
Private Interest in Public Contract, § 946.13(1)(a) — Sufficiency of Evidence
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[.]”
§ 947.01, Disorderly Conduct — Private Mailings
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,
§ 948.02, Sexual Assault — Sufficiency of Evidence
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,”
§ 948.11(2) — Exposing Minors to Harmful Materials — Constitutionality
State v. John T. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, affirming unpublished decision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.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Child Pornography – Possession of Materials Stored on Disks
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,
§ 948.40(1), Contributing to delinquency of Minor — Sufficiency of Evidence — Intent Element
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.
Disclosure of Confidential Child Abuse Reporting, § 48.981(7) — “Disclosure” Element
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.
Drug Tax Stamp, §§ 139.87-139.96 — Constitutionality
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.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Harassment Injunction (§ 813.125(4)) Not Lesser Offense of Harassment (§ 947.013(1r))
State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2002 WI App 105, PFR filed 5/10/02
For Sveum: Ian A.J. Pit
Issue/Holding: Violation of harassment injunction isn’t lesser offense of harassment, each requiring proof of distinct element. ¶¶23-28. (Court stressing, in particular, that for harassment defendant need only be “subject” to injunction but not actually violate it. ¶25.)
OWI – Informed Consent, Hearing Impaired Driver
State v. Michael S. Piddington, 2001 WI 24, 241 Wis. 2d 754, 623 N.W.2d 528, affirming State v. Piddington, 2000 WI App 44, 233 Wis.2d 257, 607 N.W.2d 303
For Piddington: Michelle Ann Tjader
Issue: Whether BAC results were suppressible because the profoundly deaf defendant could not have heard the implied-consent law recitation of rights.
Holding:
¶1 … We hold that § 343.305(4) requires the arresting officer under the circumstances facing him or her at the time of the arrest,