On Point: A. Statutory defenses

State v. Rodney Washington, 2012AP1015-CR, District 1, 3/26/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Statute of limitations, § 939.74(1) — sufficiency of “John Doe” complaint’s identification of defendant for purposes of tolling statute of limitations

The crimes in this case—sexual assault and robbery—were alleged to have occurred in 1994 and 1995. In 2000, eleven days before the statute of limitations was to run,

State v. Romey J. Hodges, 2012AP1330, District 1, 3/26/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly denied Hodges’s § 974.06 motion alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, and properly advise  Hodges regarding, a self defense claim. Based on the record Hodges has not shown his actions were reasonable self-defense; it is also clear from the record trial counsel knew the law of self-defense and gave Hodges effective representation.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

1.  Where a defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, may a court summarily refuse to hold a jury trial on the defense if it determines that the defendant will not present sufficient evidence to create a jury question?

2. Did the court of appeals err in holding any error harmless where we do not know precisely what Mr.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

1. Whether the jury instructions on self defense as it pertained to second degree reckless homicide fairly and adequately explained the defense to the jury.

2. Whether trial court erroneously excluded evidence of the victim’s reputation for violence.

Petitions for review aren’t available on the court’s website, so issue-formulation is educated guesswork based on the decision of the court of appeals.

Smith v. U.S., USSC 11-8976, 1/9/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming United States v.Moore, 651 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2011)

Conspiracy – burden of proof on defendant’s claim of withdrawal

Petitioner’s claim lies at the intersection of a withdrawal defense and a statute-of-limitations defense. He asserts that once he presented evidence that he ended his membership in the conspiracy prior to the statute-of-limitations period,

State v. Scott E. Schmidt, 2012 WI App 113 (recommended for publication); case activity

Adequate Provocation Defense, §§ 939.44(1),  940.01(2)(a) – Test for Admissibility

The “some evidence,” rather than Schmidt’s proposed less stringent “mere relevance,” standard controls admissibility of evidence of adequate provocation that would reduce first- to second-degree intentional homicide:

¶9        When applying the some evidence standard, “the circuit court must determine whether a reasonable construction of the evidence will support the defendant’s theory viewed in the most favorable light it will reasonably admit of from the standpoint of the accused.”  [State v.

on review of certification request; for Leilani Neumann: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity; for Dale Neumann: Stephen L. Miller; case activity

Reckless Homicide and “Faith Healing” as Substitute for Medical Treatment 

Issues (Composed by On Point): 

1. Whether the “faith healing” defense in § 948.03(6) is limited to prosecutions for child abuse or extends to reckless homicide, § 940.06(1).

2.

court of appeals certification, review granted, 6/13/12; for Leilani Neumann: Byron C. Lichstein; case activity; for Dale Neumann: Stephen L. Miller; case activity

Reckless Homicide and “Faith Healing” as Substitute for Medical Treatment

Convicted of reckless homicide, § 940.06(1), in the death of their daughter for failing to obtain medical treatment, the Neumanns raise various issues relating to interplay with the right to rely on prayer as treatment,

State v. Clarence E. Brown, 2011AP2049-CR, District 1, 4/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Brown: Daniel R. Drigot; case activity

Carrying Concealed Weapon, § 941.23 (2009-10) – Facially Constitutional

The court upholds the constitutionality of the prior version of § 941.23, CCW, as not violating the right to bear arms (since-modified, to allow conceal-carry under specified circumstances, 2011 WI Act 35). 

City of Waukesha v. James F. Murphy, 2010AP2499, District 1/2, 11/29/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Murphy: Leonard G. Adent; case activity

The City obtained dismissal of a then-pending OWI-1st, after discovering that Murphy had an OWI-related conviction. (Per Walworth Cnty. v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 722, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982), the State has exclusive authority over second and subsequent drunk driving offenses.) However,