On Point: 3. Particular crimes

State v. Jason J. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77, 244 Wis. 2d 523, 628 N.W.2d 801, affirming State v. Trawitzki, 2000 WI App 205, 238 Wis. 2d 795, 618 N.W.2d 884
For Trawitzki: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether multiple charges of theft of firearms taken at the same time, and multiple charges of concealing those firearms, violated double jeopardy.

Holding: Multiplicity is a two-part test: determine whether the offenses are identical in both law and fact;

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether charges of completed and attempted sexual assault of the same victim were multiplicitous.

Holding:

¶34. The nature of the two acts was different because the attempted sexual assault was foiled by the victim’s resistance. There was some time separation between the two acts, sufficient for a question and answer.

State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether distinct types of sexual assault (mouth-vagina and penis-vagina) necessarily support distinct counts.

Holding:

¶59     There is another reason Koller’s second multiplicity challenge fails.  This second claim is directed primarily at the relationship between Count 4 (mouth-to-vagina contact), on the one hand, and Counts 3 and 5 (penis-to-vagina intercourse),

State v. William J. Church, 2000 WI 90, 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638, dismissing review as improvidently granted, thereby affirming State v. Church , 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the child enticement statute, § 948.07, supports multiple charges and punishments based on a single act.

State v. David J. Cleveland, 2000 WI App 142, 237 Wis. 2d 558, 614 N.W.2d 543
For Cleveland: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether multiple sexual assault counts arising during a single incident violated double jeopardy.

Holding: Though the offenses weren’t separated in time, each required separate volitional acts and were therefore significantly different in nature for double jeopardy purposes. ¶¶24-26.

State v. Gabriel Derango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, affirming State v. DeRango 229 Wis. 2d 1, 599 N.W.2d 27
For Derango: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: Whether conviction for both attempted child sexual exploitation and child enticement as a result of a single act is multiplicitous.

Holding: The two offenses are elementally distinct and therefore aren’t the “same”

State v. Roger L. Warren, 229 Wis. 2d 172, 599 N.W.2d 431 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Warren: Daniel F. Snyder

Holding: Warren’s perjured testimony at a single hearing dealing with a single general subject supports multiple perjury counts, because each charge dealt with different perjured details and is therefore “different in fact” if not law. In other words, “different evidence is required to establish that Warren responded falsely to the questions upon which”

State v. Daniel Anderson, 219 Wis.2d 739, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998), reversing State v. Anderson, 214 Wis. 2d 126, 570 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Anderson: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether violating different conditions of a single bond supports multiple bail jumping counts.

Holding: Anderson, released on an otherwise unrelated case, was ordered as a condition of bail not to drink or have contact with the victim.