On Point: 9. Crimes

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, reversed, other grounds, 2002 WI 34
For Samuel: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for interference with child custody, § 948.31(2) and abduction, § 948.30(1)(a).

Holding:

¶38      We adopt the State’s construction.  So long as the defendant has had a hand in physically removing the child from the parents’ possession,

State v. Davon R. Malcom, 2001 WI App 291, PFR filed 11/27/01
For Malcom: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court properly amended the information, after close of evidence, to add a charge of keeping a place “which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances” to the charge of using the same place to manufacture, keep or deliver controlled substances (both charges being alternatives under § 961.41(2).

State v. Earl Steele III, 2001 WI App 34, 241 Wis. 2d 269, 625 N.W.2d 595
For Steele: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue: Whether felon in possession of firearm may be the underlying felony to burglary (entry with intent to commit felony), § 943.10(1)(a), when the defendant-felon was already in possession of the firearm before entry.

Holding: “(A) person commits a burglary when he or she unlawfully enters the premises with the intent to commit a felony while on the premises,

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether distinct types of sexual assault (mouth-vagina and penis-vagina) necessarily support distinct counts.

Holding:

¶59     There is another reason Koller’s second multiplicity challenge fails.  This second claim is directed primarily at the relationship between Count 4 (mouth-to-vagina contact), on the one hand, and Counts 3 and 5 (penis-to-vagina intercourse),

State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 626 N.W.2d 195, on certification
For Hansen: Pamela Pepper

Issue: “¶8 … ‘Does Wis. Stat. § 961.45 bar prosecution for the state crime of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, where a defendant previously has been convicted, based on the same conduct, for the federal crime of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute? Stated differently,

State v. Melvin L. Moffett and Jerrell I. Denson, 2000 WI 130, 239 Wis. 2d 629, 619 N.W.2d 918, affirming State v. Moffett/Denson, 2000 WI App 67, 233 Wis. 2d 628, 608 N.W.2d 733
For Moffett: Patrick J. Stangl; for Denson: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue:

¶2 The parties present the following question to this court: May the State charge the defendants with two crimes,

State v. Lane R. Weidner, 2000 WI 52, 235 Wis. 2d 306, 611 N.W.2d 684, on certification
For Weidner: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether § 948.11(2) is unconstitutional.

Holding:

¶43  In sum, we determine that Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2) is unconstitutional in the context of the internet and other situations that do not involve face-to-face contact.  Because the statute does not require the State to prove a defendant’s knowledge of the victim’s age when disseminating materials deemed harmful to children,

State v. Scott L. Stevenson, 2000 WI 71, 236 Wis. 2d 86, 613 N.W.2d 72, on certification
For Stevenson: Elizabeth Cavendish-Sosinski, Daniel P. Fay

Issue: Whether § 944.205(2)(a) is overbroad.

Holding: Yes. § 944.205(a) (a) prohibits depictions of nudity without the person’s knowledge and consent. Because this statute implicates first amendment rights, the state assumes the burden of proving its constitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. James T. Fitzgerald, 2000 WI App 55, 233 Wis. 2d 584, 608 N.W.2d 391
For Fitzgerald: Daniel P. Dunn

Issue: Whether a probationer in custody under a probation hold is necessarily a “prisoner” within the battery by prisoner statute, Wis. Stat. § 940.20(1).

Holding: Because a “prisoner” is someone confined as a result of a violation of the law; and because probation rules and conditions have the force of law,

State v. Stephen L. Jensen, 2000 WI 84, 236 Wis. 2d 521, 613 N.W.2d 170, affirming unpublished decision
For Jensen: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the first degree reckless injury (§ 940.23(1)) element of “utter disregard for human life” requires proof of the actor’s subjective awareness of the risk of death.

Holding: “¶17 Although ‘utter disregard for human life’ clearly has something to do with mental state,