On Point blog, page 7 of 14
SCOTUS reaffirms bright-line rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn
Esteban Martinez v. Illinois, USSC No. 13-5367 (May 27, 2014) (per curiam), reversing State v. Martinez, 990 N.E.2d 215 (Ill. 2013)
In this unanimous per curiam decision, the Supreme Court reaffirms two clear rules of criminal procedure: jeopardy attaches when the jury is impaneled and sworn; and a trial court’s dismissal of the case due to insufficient evidence is an acquittal. Added together, the two rules mean the defendant cannot be retried.
State’s complaint need not precisely allege date of child sexual assault offenses
State v. Brian Kempainen, 2014 WI App 53, petition for review granted 9/18/14, affirmed, 2015 WI 32; case activity
In this case, the circuit court dismissed 2 counts of sexual assault of a child against Kempainen because the charges failed to provide sufficient notice of when the assaults occurred thus violating due process. The court of appeals, clarifying the test in State v. R.A.R. and State v. Fawcett, reversed and held that the date of the crimes need not be precisely alleged.
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.
Conspiracy — sufficiency of evidence; propriety of response to jury question; multiplicitousness of conspiracy and solicitation charges. Sentencing — erroneous exercise of discretion in imposing fine
State v. Ronnie L. Thums, 2012AP929-CR, District 4, 7/25/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity
Sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy
Thums was charged with offering money to Trepanier, a fellow prison inmate, to kill Thums’s ex-wife and others associated with her. (¶2). In response to Trepanier’s questions about how he’d be paid, Thums told Trepanier to burglarize his ex-wife’s mother’s home and then drew a map depicting the location of that home and his ex-wife’s home.
Multiplicity — conviction for inchoate crime of conspiracy and completed crime under § 939.72(2). Constitutional right to speedy trial. Prosecutorial misconduct — failing to disclose sentencing consideration for a state’s witness
State v. Michael Lock, 2013 WI App 80; case activity
Multiplicity — conviction for conspiracy and for completed crime under § 939.72(2)
Lock was convicted of conspiracy to solicit prostitutes and conspiracy to pander between 1998 and 2003. Based on conduct in four specific months in 2002, he was also convicted of four counts of soliciting prostitutes as a party to the crime and four counts of pandering as party to the crime.
South Milwaukee ordinance restricting residency of sex offenders upheld against ex post facto and double jeopardy challenges
City of South Milwaukee v. Todd J. Kester, 2013 WI App 50; case activity
Sex offender residency restrictions – constitutionality; ex post facto and double jeopardy
South Milwaukee’s ordinance prohibiting persons convicted of certain child sex offenses from living within 1,000 feet of a school or other facility frequented by children does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto prohibitions of the state or federal constitution:
¶31 Kester fails to offer the “clearest proof”
OWI – reopening case improperly treated as a first offense
State v. James A. Krahn, 2012AP1898-CR, District 2, 1/30/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity
Motion to dismiss second-offense OWI charge was properly denied, where the charge resulted from the state’s successful motion to reopen a conviction for a first offense that had been entered a few weeks after a conviction in another case that was also treated as a first offense:
¶6 Wisconsin trial courts have no subject-matter jurisdiction over second or subsequent drunk driving offenses tried as first offenses contrary to Wis.
Double jeopardy bars retrial where judge directed verdict based on erroneous view that state failed to prove an element that was not really an element
Evans v. Michigan, USSC No. 11-1327, 2/20/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing People v. Evans, 491 Mich. 1, 810 N.W.2d 535 (2012)
A trial judge entered a directed verdict of acquittal in favor of Evans after concluding the state had not provided sufficient evidence of a particular element of the offense. A state appellate court later ruled that the unproven “element” was not actually an element at all and thus ordered a retrial.
State v. Jacqueline Robinson, 2011AP2833-CR, petition for review granted, 2/11/13
Review of per curiam court of appeals decision; case activity
Issue (from the Petition for Review):
Were Robinson’s state and federal constitutional rights against double jeopardy violated when, after imposing a sentence and remanding her to start serving the sentence forthwith, the circuit court recalled the case the next day and increased her sentence, not based on an error of law or a misstatement of fact?
Interfering with Child Custody, § 948.31(2) – Elements; Sexual Assault – Multiplicity; Mug Shot – Admissibility
State v. Scott E. Ziegler, 2012 WI 73, on certification; case activity
Interfering with Child Custody, § 948.31(2) – Elements
Language in State v. Bowden, 2007 WI App 234, ¶18, 306 Wis. 2d 393, 742 N.W.2d 332, that one method of violating § 948.31(2) (interference with child custody) requires the parent’s “initial permission” to take child, is now “withdrawn”:
¶52 Pursuant to the plain language of Wis.