On Point: 3. Particular crimes

State v. Rachel W. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, reversing unpublished decision
For Kelty: Michael J. Fairchild

Issue/Holding: The defendant’s striking the victim “twice with two separate objects, each time committing herself to strike the baby, each blow separate, distinct, not identical in fact,” supports two separate charges of first-degree reckless injury, § 940.23(1)(a), ¶¶49-50.

State v. Shawn A. Beasley, 2004 WI App 42, PFR filed 3/26/04
For Beasley: Robert Ruth

Issue: Whether charges and convictions for burglary while armed (§ 943.10(2)(a)) and burglary while committing battery (§ 943.10(2)(d)) are multiplicitous.

Holding:

¶5. We reject Beasley’s challenge for two reasons. First, the subsections of Wis. Stat. § 943.10(2) do not define penalty enhancers, they define distinct crimes.

Stephen Dye v. Frank, 355 F.3d 1102 (7th Cir 2004)
For Dye: Christopher M. Bailey

Issue/Holding:

To determine whether a civil penalty is so punitive that it is should be characterized as criminal punishment, we must consider the factors listed by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963), and reaffirmed in Hudson v.

State v. Jimmie Davison, 2003 WI 89, reversing 2002 WI App 109, 235 Wis. 2d 715, 647 N.W.2d 390
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School, Criminal Appeals Project

Issue/Holding: The legislature did not intend to preclude cumulative punishments for both aggravated battery, § 940.10(6) and battery by prisoner, § 940.20(1), for the same conduct. ¶¶47-111.

State v. Jesse H. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/24/03
For Swinson: Pamela Pepper

Issue/Holding: Separate theft by fraud charges, § 943.20(1)(d), involving a scheme to defraud the same victim over a period of time, were not multiplicitous. Though identical in law, they weren’t identical in fact, because each charge involved a distinct false representation, as well as separate volitional acts. 31-32. Nor does legislative intent support telescoping the distinct acts into one charge.

State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03
For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Individual pornographic photos, all found on the same storage disk, support individual charges, it being “reasonable to assume that the existence of multiple files on the Zip disk demonstrates that Schaefer made a new decision to download a particular image file.9 Therefore, each image file ‘represent[s] a new volitional departure,’ and the charges against Schaefer are different in fact.” ¶50. 

State v. Theodore J. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, PFR filed 1/21/03
For Krawczyk: John T. Wasielewski

Issue/Holding:

¶29. We conclude that Krawczyk’s plea to both felony murder and the underlying armed robbery, the latter conviction having been set aside, does not provide a basis for withdrawal of his plea to felony murder. First and foremost, the record is devoid of any evidence establishing that Krawczyk would not have pled guilty to felony murder (and to the other two offenses of which he remains convicted) had he known of the multiplicity of the felony murder and armed robbery charges.

State v. Prentiss M. McKinnie, 2002 WI App 82, PFR filed 3/14/02
For McKinnie: Bryan J. Borman, SPD, Waukesha Trial

Issue: Whether separate charges, of carjacking and operating the same motor vehicle without owner’s consent are permissible where, after allegedly taking the car, the defendant continued to drive it the next day.

Holding: Though these offenses are the same in law, under § 939.66(2r), the facts as alleged are distinct and therefore support separate charges in this particular instance:

¶11.

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89
For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding:

¶58. Applying these standards, we agree with the court of appeals that the 28 counts to which Multaler pled were not identical in fact. Although some of the downloaded image files contained multiple images,

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2002 WI App 105, PFR filed 5/10/02
For Sveum: Ian A.J. Pit

Issue/Holding: Violation of harassment injunction isn’t lesser offense of harassment, each requiring proof of distinct element. ¶¶23-28. (Court stressing, in particular, that for harassment defendant need only be “subject” to injunction but not actually violate it. ¶25.)