On Point: 10. Defenses

State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04
For Miller: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel didn’t prevent admissibility of evidence excluded as discovery sanction in prior, dismissed but then reissued action, where judge who dismissed prior action after imposing sanction contemplated that the excluded evidence would not be barred in a new proceeding, ¶¶31-33.

State v. Walter Junior Benjamin, 2003 WI 50, affirming 2002 WI App 89
For Hamilton: Robert A. Ramsdell

Issue/Holding:

¶3. Walter’s case raises questions about the application of statutes of limitations to child support collection actions. The issue presented is whether the State, as an assignee of Walter’s deceased former wife, filed a timely action to collect child support arrearages in 2000.

State v. Munir A. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, on bypass
For Hamdan: Chris J. Trebatoski

Issue/Holding:

¶86. In the meantime, we must give effect to the constitutional right embodied in Article I, Section 25.39 A defendant who challenges on constitutional grounds a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon will be required to secure affirmative answers to the following legal questions before he or she is entitled to raise a constitutional defense.

State v. Waylon Picotte, 2003 WI 42, on certification
For Picotte: John T. Wasielewski

Issue: Whether conviction for homicide is barred because the victim did not die within a year and a day of infliction of the fatal injuries.

Holding:

¶5. We disagree with the circuit court and hold that the defendant’s conviction in this case is barred by the common-law year-and-a-day rule.

State v. Jeffrey B. Haines, 2003 WI 39, 2002 WI App 139
For Haines: Mark A. Huesmann, Sonja Davig Huesmann

Issue/Holding: An extension of the limitation period for prosecuting a crime, before the prior limitation period has expired, doesn’t violate the ex post facto clause of the Wisconsin Constitution.

¶15. In sum, the court of appeals succinctly and correctly reasoned that:

[T]he 1994 amendment to Wis.

State v. Shon D. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, PFR filed 2/3/03
For Brown: Robert T. Ruth

Issue: Whether defendant was entitled to an instruction on territorial jurisdiction, § 939.03, where the offense was partially committed out of the state.

Holding:

¶23. The question of whether or when a jury must be instructed on the State’s burden to establish its territorial jurisdiction over a defendant for charged offenses appears to be one of first impression in Wisconsin.

State v. Munir A. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, on bypass
For Hamdan: Chris J. Trebatoski

Issue/Holding: Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25 (right to bear arms) does not establish a privilege defense to CCW, § 941.23, under § 939.45.

As to subs. (1): “The existence of random, albeit frequent, criminal conduct in one’s vicinity does not qualify as a ‘natural physical force’ under the law.

State v. Kevin D. Jennings, 2003 WI 10, reversing 2002 WI App 16, 250 Wis. 2d 138, 640 N.W.2d 165
For Jennings: Steven M. Compton

Issue/Holding:

¶1 … At issue is whether a criminal complaint that is filed against a defendant, who is already incarcerated, is sufficient to commence a prosecution. Based on the legislative history of Wis. Stat. § 939.74(1) (1999-2000) and related criminal statutes that deal with the commencement of criminal prosecutions and warrantless arrests,

State v. Bobby R. Dabney, 2003 WI App 108, PFR filed 5/23/03
For Dabney: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding:

¶21. Here, it is undisputed that the DNA profile complaint and warrant were issued three days before the statute of limitations expired. We have already concluded that the complaint and warrant in this case were sufficient to commence the prosecution. Thus, the case was timely filed.

Michael S. Johnson v. Berge, 2003 WI App 51

Issue/Holding: Review of issue preclusion is governed by Paige K.B. v. Steven G.B., 226 Wis. 2d 210, 594 Wis. 2d 370 (1999). The record isn’t sufficient to review the issue. ¶¶13-14.

For discussion on preclusive effect of state court suppression ruling on federal court dealing with same evidence, see U.S.