On Point: 5. Defense of self

State v. Romey J. Hodges, 2012AP1330, District 1, 3/26/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity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Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity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

State v. Morris L. Harris, 2009AP2833-CR,  District 1, 10/13/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Harris: Gary Grass; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Lesser-Included Instruction – Battery

Harris not entitled to instruction on simple battery as lesser included of substantial battery; the medical evidence established without contradiction that the victim suffered a fractured rib, therefore no reasonable jury could have acquitted him of the greater offense,

State v. Richard Martin Kubat, 2010AP509-CR, District 3, 9/21/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kubat: Marc Grant Kurzman; BiC; Resp.

Battery – Self-Defense – Sufficiency of Evidence

A verbal confrontation between truckers at a truck stop eventuated in Belcher disabling Kubat’s truck and inviting Kubat to get his punk ass out of his cab “and get it.” Kubat accepted the invitation and brought his tire knocker along as his own guest.  

State v. Patrick M. Zurkowski, No. 2009AP929-CR, District III, 6/22/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Zurkowski: Michael J. Fairchild; BiC; Resp.

1st-Degree Intentional Homicide – Sufficient Evidence, Intent

¶13      That Zurkowski killed June through a combination of repeated blows and cutting her tongue with a ceramic object he crammed in her mouth, rather than by killing her via a single fatal wound,

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Heindl: Lisa A. McDougal; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Jury Instructions – Self-Defense

Trial for battery, which the State theorized occurred when Heindl put Lien in a headlock from behind. Heindl himself suffered scratches and swelling about an eye, but was seriously drunk and had difficulty giving a coherent account to the police. He did not testify,

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Lonski: Basil M. Loeb; BiC; Resp.

Self-Defense
Lonski’s claim of self-defense (that she was protecting herself from “unlawful” use of force by a uniformed officer) was rejected as not credible by the trial court in a bench trial, and that credibility determination wasn’t clearly erroneous.

Jury Waiver
Lonski’s jury waiver was adequately canvassed,

State v. Jason L. McClaren, 2009 WI 60, reversing 2008 WI App 118
For McClaren: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding:

¶21      It is well established that a defendant seeking to support a self-defense claim may attempt to “prov[e] prior specific instances of violence within [the defendant’s] knowledge at the time of the incident.”  State v. Wenger, 225 Wis.

State v. Jason L. McClaren, 2009 WI 60, reversing 2008 WI App 118
For McClaren: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding:

¶21      It is well established that a defendant seeking to support a self-defense claim may attempt to “prov[e] prior specific instances of violence within [the defendant’s] knowledge at the time of the incident.”  State v. Wenger, 225 Wis.

State v. Jason L. McClaren, 2009 WI 60, reversing 2008 WI App 118
For McClaren: Michael C. Witt

Issue/Holding: A trial court has inherent and statutory authority (§ 906.11) to order that a defendant provide a pretrial summary of the specific “McMorris” evidence (violent acts of the alleged victim the defendant knew about, as relevant to self-defense) he or she wants to introduce at trial:

¶26      Given the limited nature of the evidence covered in this order——that is,