On Point: 2004-05 Term

State v. David S. Stenklyft, 2005 WI 71, on bypass
For Stenklyft: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The prosecutorial veto written into the TIS sentence-adjustment provision, § 973.195, is unconstitutional:

¶83 … “[S]hall” is interpreted as directory, thereby giving a circuit court discretion to accept or reject an objection from a district attorney on a petition for sentence adjustment under Wis.

State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals
For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18 An analysis of 2001 Wis. Act 109 by the Legislative Reference Bureau clearly supports the conclusion that persons sentenced under TIS-I are able to utilize the procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. § 973.195 … .

…

¶20 As discussed previously in Trujillo,

State v. John R. Maloney, 2005 WI 74, affirming 2004 WI App 141, but nonetheless retaining jurisdiction pending resolution of other issues
For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman

Issue/Holding: Failure to move to suppress evidence based on asserted violation of SCR 20:4.2 does not support deficient performance, given that applicability of this Rule was not settled:

¶23      The split of authorities described above is important in considering whether Maloney’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the admissibility of the videotape evidence based on an alleged violation of SCR 20:4.2. 

State v. Derek Anderson, 2005 WI 54, on certification
Anderson: Neil C. McGinn, SPD, Milwaukee Trial; Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶47 We conclude that § 939.03(1)(a) is satisfied upon proof that the defendant committed an act in Wisconsin manifesting the intent to kill. Specifically, intent to kill, which is a constituent element of first-degree intentional homicide, may be said to take place——that is,

State v. Peter A. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, reversing unpublished decision
For Fonte: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: § 940.09 is constitutional, as against a challenge that it relieves the State of proving a causal connection between intoxication and death; reasoning in, and result of, State v. Caibaiosai, 122 Wis. 2d 587, 363 N.W.2d 574 (1985) reaffirmed, ¶38.

State v. Peter A. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, reversing unpublished decision
For Fonte: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Fonte’s emotionally charged statement to a police officer at the scene that he “thought the boat was out of gear,” corroborated by a companion’s “grudging admission that he had agreed that Fonte was operating the boat” is sufficient to satisfy the § 940.09 element of “operating,” ¶21.

State v. Michael A. DeLain, 2005 WI 52, affirming, as modified, 2004 WI App 79
For DeLain: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding:

¶9        To obtain a conviction for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.22(2), the State must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:  (1) that the defendant was or held himself or herself out to be a therapist; (2) that the defendant had intentional sexual contact with a patient or client;

State v. Brent R. Reed, 2005 WI 53, affirming as modified 2004 WI App 98, and overruling State v. Joseph M. Espinoza, 2002 WI App 51
For Reed: David H. Weber

Issue/Holding:

¶21    … Wisconsin JI——Criminal 1766A (2003) accurately sets forth the elements of obstructing an officer based on giving false information to police as follows:

1. 

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

¶15      Here, too, we examine the statute providing for the crime, Wis. Stat. § 948.22(2), to determine the elements of the crime of failure to pay child support, and we focus on the conduct that is prohibited therein.

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116
For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Smith’s unsuccessful prior challenge to the court support order bars him, under principles of claim preclusion, from challenging the validity of the order in the present non-support prosecution, ¶¶21-23.

The court invokes this principle as justification for rejection of Smith’s requested jury instruction on whether the issuing court exercised “competent jurisdiction.” Given the court’s holding that this matter is not an element,