On Point: A. Multiplicity

State v. Dana Eaglefeathers, 2009 WI App 2, PFR filed 1/9/09
For Eaglefeathers: Patricia A. Fitzgerald

Issue/Holding: Violation of the same condition in a single bond applicable to two different cases (failure to appear at both preliminary hearings scheduled for the same time and court) supports multiple bail jumping charges:

¶8        The parties do not dispute that the offenses charged against Eaglefeathers are identical in law;

State v. Thomas A. Nommensen, 2007 WI App 224
For Nommensen: Anthony L. O’Malley

Issue/Holding: Although charges of repeated sexual assault, § 948.025(1) were the same in law, they were different in fact because they :

¶8        Charged offenses are not multiplicitous if the facts are either separate in time or of a significantly different nature. Id. at 749. “The appropriate question is whether these acts allegedly committed … are so significantly different in fact that they may properly be denominated separate crimes although each would furnish a factual underpinning or a substitute legal element for the violation of the same statute.” Id.

State v. Alvin M. Moore, 2006 WI App 61, PFR filed 3/21/06
For Moore: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶15      Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single criminal offense in more than one count. State v. Grayson, 172 Wis. 2d 156, 159, 493 N.W.2d 23 (1992). Claims of multiplicity are analyzed using a two-prong test that requires examination of: (1) “whether the charged offenses are identical in law and fact;” and (2) if they are not,

State v. Rachel W. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, reversing unpublished decision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:

¶32. In sum, we conclude that the imposition of cumulative punishments from different statutes in a single prosecution for “the same offense” violates double jeopardy when the cumulative punishments are not intended by the legislature. 

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.