On Point blog, page 22 of 22
Defenses – Inability to Pay – Nonsupport
State v. Christopher M. Clutter, 230 Wis.2d 472, 602 N.W.2d 324 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Clutter: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the nonsupport defense of inability to pay is viable by showing “lack of financial resources alone.”
Holding: “(L)ack of financial resources alone is insufficient to demonstrate inability to pay.”
Inability to pay is a defense to nonsupport. Clutter, on postconviction motion,
Ex Post Facto – Noncriminal Disability flowing from prior conviction
Monroe Swan v. Douglas LaFolette, 231 Wis.2d 633, 605 N.W.2d 640 (Ct. App. 1999)
Issue: Whether denial of opportunity to become notary public due to felony conviction violates ex post facto provision.
Holding: Ex post facto clause forbids punishing as crime any act which wasn’t punishable when committed, but laws that merely disadvantage someone don’t; because the plain language of the new notary public provision evinces no intent to punish,
§ 948.22(2), Nonsupport — statute of limitations, unit of prosecution
State v. David J. Lenz, 230 Wis.2d 529, 602 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Lenz: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a charge of § 948.22(2) nonsupport based on arrearages accrued more than six years prior to the charge is barred by the statute of limitations.
Holding: The crime of nonsupport is complete after each 120-day period of intentional failure to pay, including arrearages as well as current obligations,
§ 948.22(2), Nonsupport –statute of limitations, unit of prosecution
State v. Ronald L. Monarch, 230 Wis.2d 542, 602 N.W.2d 179 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Monarch: Craig S. Lambert
Issue: Whether a charge of § 948.22(2) nonsupport based on arrearages accrued more than six years prior to the charge is barred by the statute of limitations
Holding:: The crime of nonsupport is complete after each 120-day period of intentional failure to pay, including arrearages as well as current obligations,
Common Law Privileges – Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest
State v. Shonna Hobson, 218 Wis.2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), on certification
For Hobson: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, LAIP, UW Law School
Holding: Wisconsin recognizes a common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest (i.e., w/o made w/o probable cause); but having recognized that privilege, the court simultaneously abrogates it (albeit prospectively only, because of ex post facto concerns). The holding is limited to “unlawful interference with the person”