On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Aggregating 289 thefts as 1 continuous offense then dividing by 8 = no multiplicity violation
State v. Tina M. Jacobsen, 2014 WI App 13; case activity
Jacobsen was charged with 8 offenses for stealing $500,000 from her employer, and she was convicted on 3 counts. The charges were based on 289 individual thefts occurring over 3 years. On appeal she claimed her trial lawyer was ineffective for failing advise her that, and for failing to seek dismissal because, the charges were duplicitous or multiplicitous.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Theft by Fraud, § 943.20(1)(d), Same Victim Over Period of Time
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.
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: theft and concealment, §§ 943.20(1)(a) & (3)(d)5
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;