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
Contributing to Delinquency of Child, § 948.40(4)(a) – Element of “Child”: Includes 17-Year-Olds
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161 For Patterson: David R. Karpe Issue/Holding: ¶29 We will assume, for purposes of Patterson’s argument, that the definition of “juvenile” in Wis. Stat. § 938.02 applies for purposes of defining “delinquency” in Wis. Stat. § 948.40. Nonetheless, Patterson’s statutory analysis ignores the fact that a seventeen-year-old is only […]
Possession of Controlled Substance – Sufficiency of Evidence, Possession Element – Presence of Drugs in Body
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161 For Patterson: David R. Karpe Issue/Holding: ¶25 There is no dispute that testing revealed that Tanya S. had Oxycodone in her system at the relevant time. However, as Patterson argues, the presence of drugs in someone’s system, standing alone, is not sufficient evidence to support a […]
Post-Sentencing Plea-Withdrawal – Grounds: Misapprehension re: Plea Bargain Term (State’s Authority to Argue Facts Underlying Dismissed Charge)
State v. Richard L. Wesley, 2009 WI App 118, PFR filed 8/4/09 For Wesley: Alvin Ugent Issue/Holding: ¶24 Here, as we said, Wesley claims that he understood the term “dismissed outright” to mean that the State could never use the underlying facts against him. He claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object. […]
Plea-Withdrawal – Post-Sentencing – Bangert Hearing – State Met Burden of Proof
State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2009 WI 41, affirming 2008 WI App 89 For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Notwithstanding “irregularities” with respect to the burden of proof, the hearing on Hoppe’s Bangert challenge established that his plea was knowing and voluntary, given “the circuit court’s findings … that the circuit court […]
Remedial Contempt – Commitment Order Based on Ex Parte Motion of (Non-attorney) Child Support Case Specialist
Clay Teasdale v. Marinette County Child Support Agency, 2009 WI App 152 Issue/Holding: Case specialist’s request to judge via affidavit and proposed order for remedial-contempt commitment was in fact if not form a “motion” and “was improper on numerous grounds”: it violated the §802.05(1) requirement that aside from pro se litigation motions must be signed by […]
Contempt – Remedial – Monetary Damages Unavailable for Past Contempt
Milton J. Christensen, et al. v. Sullivan, et al., 2009 WI 87, reversing 2008 WI App 18 For Christensen: Peter M. Koneazny, Patrick O. Patterson Issue: Whether remedial contempt supports monetary sanction for past acts (here: intentional violations of jail-overcrowding consent decree) where the sanctionable conduct has terminated. Holding: Remedial sanction, including monetary award, is limited to “continuing” contempt of court, […]
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09(2)(am)1 – Elements – Expectation of Privacy: Consensually Nude in Another’s Presence
State v. Mark T. Jahnke, 2009 WI App 4 For Jahnke: Harold L. Harlowe; Michael J. Herbert Issue/Holding: Secretly videotaping another without consent, though that person knowingly exposes herself nude to the video taper, supports criminal liability: ¶6 Jahnke contends that the facts do not support the third element, the expectation of privacy element. He reasons […]
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09(2)(am)1 – Elements, Generally
State v. Mark T. Jahnke, 2009 WI App 4 For Jahnke: Harold L. Harlowe; Michael J. Herbert Issue/Holding: ¶5 Jahnke entered a plea to the recording crime defined in Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(am)1. That crime has four elements: (1) the defendant recorded a person in the nude;(2) the recording is without the nude person’s knowledge and […]
Plain Error, § 901.03 – Generally
State v. James D. Lammers, 2009 WI App 136, PFR filed 9/16/09 For Lammers: Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue/Holding: ¶12 “Plain error” means a clear or obvious error, one that likely deprived the defendant of a basic constitutional right. State v. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, ¶25, 250 Wis. 2d 95, 640 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. […]
Plain Error, § 901.03(4) – “Haseltine / Jensen” Issue
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, PFR filed 3/6/09 For Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel Issue/Holding: Unpreserved challenge to sexual assault nurse examiner’s testimony (that abrasions were consistent with forcible intercourse and that no complainant had ever provided her with an inaccurate history) didn’t rise to plain error: ¶12 As […]
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.