Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
§ 940.23(1), Reckless Injury – “Utter Disregard for Human Life” – Insufficient Proof, Interplay of Self-Defense
State v. James D. Miller, 2009 WI App 111, PFR filed 8/3/09 Pro se Issue/Holding: Miller incontrovertibly had some basis to fire a shotgun at his drunken, violent antagonist and even if not adequate to establish full self-defense was enough to defeat the reckless injury element of utter disregard for human life, thereby requiring entry […]
Expectation of Privacy – Public Area (Courthouse Hallway), Property Left in
State v. Elliot B. Russ, Sr., 2009 WI App 68 For Russ: Barry S. Buckspan Issue/Holding: No expectation of privacy protected papers left in courthouse hallway and subsequently seized and photocopied by court personnel: ¶12 Although Russ’s main brief on this appeal asserts that, as testified-to by Carlson, the affidavits were in a folder when Carlson saw them, the […]
§ 940.32(2), Stalking, Generally: “Three Distinct Classifications”
State v. Janet A. Conner, 2009 WI APP 143, PFR filed 9/28/09 For Conner: J. Steven House Issue/Holding: ¶11 Wisconsin Stat. § 940.32 creates three distinct classifications of stalking offenses. See State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, ¶24, 315 Wis. 2d 253, 759 N.W.2d 557. Subsections (2) and (2e) each set forth separate requirements for Class […]
§ 940.32(2m)(b), Stalking – “Course of Conduct” Acts: Timing, Admissibility
State v. Janet A. Conner, 2009 WI APP 143, PFR filed 9/28/09 For Conner: J. Steven House Issue/Holding: ¶19 We conclude that the seven year time restriction specified in Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(b) requires that only the final act charged as part of a course of conduct occur within seven years of the previous conviction, […]
§§ 940.32(2) & (2m)(a), Stalking, Having Prior Conviction for Violence – Prior Conviction Is Element, not Penalty Enhancer
State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42 For Warbelton: Paul G. Lazotte, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Prior conviction for a violent crime is element, not penalty enhancer, of stalking, §§ 940.32(2) & (2m)(a): ¶30 First, sub. (2m)(a) designates a list of specific crimes that elevate a simple stalking offense […]
Expectation of Privacy – Generally
State v. Elliot B. Russ, Sr., 2009 WI App 68 For Russ: Barry S. Buckspan Issue/Holding: ¶11 The first issue turns on whether Russ had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the affidavits that he left on the bench. See Roberts, 196 Wis. 2d at 453, 538 N.W.2d at 828 (“[B]efore a defendant can invoke the protections of […]
Exigency – Destruction of Evidence (Drugs) – Entry of Residence – Following Controlled Buy
State v. Antonio K. Phillips, 2009 WI App 179, PFR filed 11/25/09 For Phillips: Michael J. Backes Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence, following controlled buy within it, was justified by the threat of destruction of evidence, given that, “after seeing the police outside the residence, Phillips retreated into the residence and shut the door after the police […]
Exigency – “Protective Sweep” as Incident of Destruction of Evidence
State v. Kevin Raphael Lee, 2009 WI App 96, PFR filed 7/1/09 For Lee: Robert E. Haney Issue/Holding: Police investigating complaint of drug dealing were entitled to enter apartment and conduct “protective sweep” when they saw, through the open front door, clear evidence of drugs: ¶13 The officers who presented themselves at Lee’s front door were investigating […]
Certiorari – Inmate Complaint – “Misdirected” Writ, Lack of Jurisdiction
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49 Pro se Issue/Holding: Writ of certiorari “misdirected” to wrong respondent (in this instance, review of inmate complaint, improperly naming as respondent institution warden rather than DOC Secretary or designee) must be dismissed: ¶10 We begin by observing that certiorari “is available only for […]
Certiorari – Inmate Complaint – Limitation on Discovery
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49 Pro se Issue/Holding: Inmate may not utilize discovery to bypass security-based restrictions on access to banned material such as pornography: ¶16 Inmates must not be allowed to evade security restrictions by simply filing suit or petitioning for writ of certiorari and obtaining prohibited […]
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.