On Point: 2. Elements

State v. David A. Schultz, 2022AP1622, 2/13/24, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

Schultz’s technical challenge to this OWI conviction fails, as COA finds sufficient evidence that the bar parking lot in which Schultz operated his motor vehicle was covered by the OWI statute.

State v. Dreama F. Harvey, 2022 WI App 60; case activity (including briefs)

A jury convicted Harvey of reckless homicide by the delivery of heroin. On appeal, she notes that the jury instructions would have permitted conviction on the theory that she either aided and abetted another supplier or was part of the chain of distribution–that is, that she supplied the person who actually sold the heroin to the decedent. But there was no evidence she’d done any of those things: if she’d committed the crime, all the evidence showed that it was by selling the heroin directly to the buyer, who ingested it and died. The verdict forms were general: the jury was asked only to determine guilt or innocence, not whether Harvey was the principal, an aider, or a higher-up in the chain. So, Harvey says, we can’t know whether the jury convicted her based on one of the other two theories for which there was no evidence, and her conviction must be reversed.

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, 2022 WI 43, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

How should an appellate court measure the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury verdict where the instructions and the special verdict define the crime differently? In a 5-1 opinion, the majority held, based on the facts of this particular case, that the jury instructions should control. It then considered whether the evidence of child sexual assault was sufficient even though the State failed to prove that the charged conduct occurred during the charged time periods. The majority drew inferences in favor of the verdict and answered “yes.” Justice Dallett dissented on both points. Justice Karofsky did not participate.

State v. Carl Lee McAdory, 2021 WI App 89; case activity (including briefs)

McAdory was charged with driving with a detectable amount of restricted controlled substances—cocaine and THC—and driving under the influence of those substances. At trial, the state convinced the trial judge to modify the standard jury instruction for the latter charge, Wis. J.I.—Criminal 2664, by deleting the statement that not every person who has consumed controlled substances is “under the influence.” This modification, coupled with the prosecutor’s closing argument that it had proven its case by proving McAdory had a detectable amount of the substances, effectively relieved the state of its burden to prove that McAdory was “under the influence.”

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, petition for review of an unpublished court of appeals decision granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)

Issues presented (from State’s petition for review)

1. How does a court consider the theory of guilt in an evidence sufficiency claim when an inconsistency exists between a jury instruction and verdict?

2. Must a court accept a jury’s resolution of any vagueness in testimony as jury credibility and weight determinations and must a court then adopt the reasonable inferences that a jury may have drawn from the evidence?

3. Has Coughlin, as the defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, met his heavy burden to overcome the great deference this Court gives to the jury and its verdict to satisfy that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State and the convictions, was insufficient to sustain the 15 guilty verdicts relating to his sexual assaults of John Doe 2 and John Doe 3?

State v. Donald P. Coughlin, 2019AP1876-CR, District 4, 3/4/21 (not recommended for publication), state’s petition for review granted 9/14/21; case activity (including briefs)

In 2010 Coughlin was charged with over 20 counts of having sexual contact with three different children during various periods between 1989 and 1994. The court of appeals holds the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the counts involving  two of the children.

State v. Troy R. Lasecki, 2020 WI App 36; case activity (including briefs)

Wonders never cease. The State charged Lasecki with 2 counts of failure to return security deposits to tenants in violation of Wis. Admin Code. §ATCP 134.06(2) and §§100.20(2) and 100.26(3)(2013-3104). Lasecki proceeded pro se at trial, and a jury convicted  on both counts. His appeal drew amicus briefs from the Apartment Ass’n for Southeastern Wisconsin, the Univ. of Wis. Law School and from the Attorney General  about whether the statute and code criminalized the failure to return rent. Answer: “yes.” but Lasecki won anyway because the jury instructions were erroneous and the court erred in ordering restitution above the victim’s pecuniary losses.

State v. Kaprisha E. Greer, 2019AP806-CR, District 1, 1/22/20 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Greer seeks a new trial in the interest of justice on the ground that the jury at her disorderly conduct trial should have been instructed about the meaning of “true threat” because the state elicited evidence about a threat during its case-in-chief. The court of appeals rejects her claim.

State v. Andrei R. Byrd, 2014AP2721-CR, District 4 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Byrd was released on bond for 2 felonies that imposed 2 conditions: don’t leave Rock County and don’t commit any new crimes. He went to Illinois, drank too much, and started shouting at a 4th of July party. An officer saw him move toward a woman and raise his hand, causing her to move backward into a defensive posture. He was arrested for assault under Illinois law. Then the State of Wisconsin charged him with 4 counts of felony bail jumping for violating the 2 conditions of the bonds on his 2 felonies (2 x 2 = 4).

State v. Alphonso Lamont Willis, 2016AP791-CR, 7/18/17, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Alphonso Willis appeals his jury-trial conviction of first-degree intentional homicide and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He raises several claims for a new trial and also asks for resentencing. The court of appeals rejects the resentencing claim and some of his complaints of trial error, but concludes that he is entitled to a Machner hearing on his trial counsel’s (1) failure to present testimony that his boots did not match the prints left at the scene and (2) failure to introduce evidence that the homicide occurred at a time when he had already left the vicinity.