On Point blog, page 128 of 133
§ 940.24, Negligent Offenses — handling dangerous weapon – dogs
State v. Jene R. Bodoh, 226 Wis.2d 718, 595 N.W.2d 330 (1999), affirming State v. Bodoh, 220 Wis.2d 102, 582 N.W.2d 440 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bodoh: Michael D. Mandelman
Holding: A dog can be a dangerous weapon if used or intended or intended to be used in a manner calculated or likely to cause death or great bodily harm. (This holding has the effect of ratifying a prior court of appeals decision on this point,
Common Law Privileges – Self-Defense, as Applied to Carrying Concealed Weapon
State v. John V. Dundon, 226 Wis.2d 654, 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999), on certification
For Dundon: William S. Coleman, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.
Holding:
¶36 In Coleman, we recognized that “a narrow defense of privilege under Wis. Stat. § 939.45(6) exists to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm.” Coleman, 206 Wis. 2d at 210.
§ 943.30(1), Extortion – Threatening Interference with Education
State v. Richard L. Kittilstad, 231 Wis.2d 245, 603 N.W.2d 732 (1999), affirming State v. Kittilstad, 222 Wis.2d 204, 585 N.W.2d 925 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kittilstad: Richard L. Wachowski
Issue: Whether threats to interfere with educational opportunity may amount to extortion under § 943.30(1).
Holding: A threat to interfere with education is tantamount to a threat to a “calling or trade,”
§ 944.21, Obscenity – constitutionality – jury instructions – selective prosecution – prevailing community standards
County of Kenosha v. C & S Management, 223 Wis.2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), on certification
For C & S: Robert R. Henak, and Shellow, Shellow & Glynn
Holdings:
- Obscenity statute, Wis. Stat. § 944.21 (1995-96), survives freedom-of-speech and void-for-vagueness challenges.
- Expert testimony on community standards isn’t constitutionally required; telephone survey wasn’t relevant, largely because it didn’t convey the explicitness of a video,
§ 944.32, Prostitution – Soliciting Voyeuristic Acts
State v. Richard L. Kittilstad, 231 Wis.2d 245, 603 N.W.2d 732 (1999), affirming State v. Kittilstad, 222 Wis.2d 204, 585 N.W.2d 925 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kittilstad: Richard L. Wachowski
Issue: Whether offering money in exchange for the opportunity to watch sex acts may amount to soliciting prostitution under § 944.32.
Holding: The statute requires that the defendant “solicit” someone “to practice prostitution.”
§ 948.05, Sexual exploitation of child – constitutionality
State v. Joel R. Zarnke, 224 Wis.2d 116, 589 N.W.2d 370 (1999), reversing and remanding, 215 Wis.2d 71, 572 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Zarnke: Michael R. Cohen, Wachowski, Johnson & Cohen
Issue/Holding:
¶ The issue before the court is whether Wis. Stat. § 948.05 prohibiting the sexual exploitation of a child violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I,
Interstate Agreement on Detainers – habeas corpus ad prosequendum
State v. Danny C. Eesley, 225 Wis.2d 248, 591 N.W.2d 846 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Eesley: Kyle H. Torvinen, Hendricks, Knudson, Gee, Hayden & Torvinen, S.C.
Issue/Holding: A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, § 782.44 (1993-94), is not a detainer and therefore doesn’t trigger the trial deadline of the Interstate Act on Detainers, § 976.05.
The court declines, on waiver grounds, to address a potential argument that using the writ to transfer a defendant from federal prison to state court violates the Executive Privilege Clause in U.S.
Particular Examples of Misconduct, § 904.04(2) — “Reverse” Misconduct — 3rd-party similar crime as exoneration of defendant
State v. Daniel G. Scheidell, 227 Wis.2d 285, 595 N.W.2d 661 (1999), on reconsideration, State v. Scheidell, 230 Wis.2d 189, 601 N.W.2d 284 (1999), reversing State v. Scheidell, 220 Wis.2d 753, 584 N.W.2d 897 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Scheidell: Mitchell E. Cooper, SPD, Madison.
Holding: Scheidell sought to introduce evidence that, while he was in jail awaiting trial on this sexual assault-related case,
Expert Testimony – Mental Disorder – Usefulness to Fact-Finder
State v. John J. Watson, 227 Wis.2d 167, 595 N.W.2d 403 (1999), reversing unpublished decision
For Watson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Holding: Admissibility of a psychologist’s (preliminary hearing, 980 proceeding) testimony that Watson’s crime was sexually motivated is upheld:
¶ 52. … While the average lay person may be able to draw reasonable inferences from facts, an expert ought to be able to show how a person’s offense relates to the person’s purported mental disorder,
Jury – Selection – Bias / Disqualification – Juror’s Prior Criminal Record
State v. Robert A. Mendoza, 227 Wis.2d 838, 596 N.W.2d 736 (1999), reversing State v. Mendoza 220 Wis.2d 803, 584 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Mendoza: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: Striking jurors (at state’s request) merely because they have criminal records is “an error of law,” ¶24. The court, however, goes on to review whether each such juror should have been struck for cause.