On Point blog, page 89 of 89
Gambling, § 945.03(5) — Sufficiency of Evidence — Expert Testimony Unnecessary
State v. Lester E. Hahn, 221 Wis. 2d 670, 586 N.W.2d 5 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Hahn: Bruce Elbert
Issue/Holding:
We reject Hahn’s argument that expert testimony was necessary to establish that these video poker machines were gambling machines. Although Hahn refers to cases from other jurisdictions in which technical aspects of the machines’ functions were at issue, he does not relate those cases to any disputed issue here.
§ 943.10, Burglary (Entry with Intent to Commit Felony) — Unanimity as to Intended Felony not Required
State v. Gordon Hammer, 216 Wis. 2d 214, 576 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App 1997)
For Hammer: Charles W. Jones, Jr.
Issue: Whether juror unanimity is required for burglary, as to which felony was intended during the unlawful entry.
Holding:
In addressing Hammer’s unanimity claim, we engage in a two-step process. We must first determine whether this statute creates only one offense with multiple modes of commission or,