On Point: 3. Notice of charge

State v. Dion M. Echols, 2010AP2626-CR, District 1, 9/27/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Echols: Amelia L. Bizzaro; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to establish “great bodily harm” element of 1st-degree sexual assault, § 940.225(1)(a), where the harm was inflicted a short time after the assault.

¶23      In this case, the trial court properly determined that Echols’ shooting M.F. subsequent to the nonconsensual sexual contact constituted great bodily harm.  

on petition for review of unpublished decision; for Thompson: J.P. La Chapelle; case activity

Issues (provided by court):

Whether the failure to inform Thompson of the applicable mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years of incarceration prior to trial violated Thompson’s constitutional due process rights.

Whether the complaint in this case was defective under Wis. Stat. § 970.02(1)(a) because it did not state the applicable mandatory minimum sentence,

State v. Janet A. Conner, 2011 WI 8, affirming 2009 WI App 143; for Conner: Stephen E. Mays; case activity; Conner BiC; State Resp.; Reply

Stalking, § 940.32 – Notice of Charge, “Course of Conduct”

Stalking requires proof of, among other elements, a “course of conduct” which “means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time,

State v. Harry Thompson, 2009AP1505-CR, District 4, 11/24/10, reversed, 2012 WI 90

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication), reversed 2012 WI 90; for Thompson: J.P. La Chapelle; State BiC; Thompson Resp.; Reply; State Supp.; Thompson Supp.

Failure of the charging document to provide Thompson with notice that he faced a mandatory minimum confinement (25 years on each count) didn’t violate due process.

decision below: 2009 WI App 143; for Conner: Steven J. House

Issues:

What degree of specificity is required in charging dates of allege conduct in a criminal information to satisfy the accused’s constitutional due process rights of notice of the charged offenses?

Does Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(b) require that the state prove that a “course of conduct,” constituting two or more acts, occur after the operative prior conviction in order to establish a violation of the aggravated stalking offense?