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
Conspiracy to Manufacture Controlled Substance — § 961.41(1x), Elements — Generally
State v. Henry E. Routon, 2007 WI App 178, PFR filed For Routon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶18 Wisconsin Stat. § 939.31 sets forth the elements of the crime of conspiracy applicable under Wis. Stat. § 961.41(1x).[8] Section 939.31 provides: …. whoever, with intent that a crime be committed, agrees or combines with another for the […]
Conspiracy to Manufacture Controlled Substance — Undercover Agent as Party to Agreement, Generally
State v. Henry E. Routon, 2007 WI App 178, PFR filed For Routon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶19 The crime that is the subject of the conspiracy need not be committed in order for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 939.31 to occur; rather, the focus is on the intent of the individual defendant. State […]
Conspiracy to Manufacture Controlled Substance — Sufficiency of Evidence – Knowledge of Intended Use – Agreement
State v. Henry E. Routon, 2007 WI App 178, PFR filed For Routon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Evidence of conspiracy to manufacture controlled substance is sufficient, notwithstanding that the psilocybe spores that defendant sold were themselves legal, given “abundant evidence from which it is reasonable to infer that Routon marketed the psilocybe spores […]
Possession of Controlled Substance, PTAC – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Charles E. Dukes, 2007 WI App 175 For Dukes: Robert N. Meyeroff Issue/Holding: ¶22 Dukes contends that this evidence is insufficient because there was “no physical evidence linking [him] to the drug house and the drugs in the drug house,” because neither his fingerprints nor DNA were on any of the items recovered. […]
Keeping Drug Vehicle, § 961.42(1) – Elements, Generally
State v. Wayne Charles Slagle, 2007 WI App 117 For Slagle: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶2 … Because the State charged Slagle with keeping or maintaining a “vehicle” used for “keeping” cocaine, the State needed to prove the following three elements: 1. Slagle kept or maintained a vehicle. 2. Slagle’s vehicle was […]
Keeping Drug Vehicle, § 961.42(1) – Element of “Keeping” – More than Mere Transport Required
State v. Wayne Charles Slagle, 2007 WI App 117 For Slagle: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶7 The interpretation of the statutory term “keeping” as “warehousing or storage for ultimate manufacture or delivery” comes from State v. Brooks, 124 Wis. 2d 349, 354-55, 369 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1985). Neither party challenges this interpretation […]
Plea-Withdrawal, Pre-Sentencing – “Fair and Just Reason” – Claim of Innocence: Insufficient, Alone
State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07 For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: “A claim of innocence, of course, is not sufficient as a stand-alone reason to permit a plea withdrawal even before sentencing. State v. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 222, 239, […]
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – “Fair and Just” Reason: Claim of Unrealized Benefit from Efforts to Cooperate with Law Enforcement
State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, reversing 2006 WI App 28 For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether Jenkins’ claim that he (wrongly) thought he would be guaranteed an opportunity to work with law enforcement in return for potential sentencing benefit was a fair and just reason to allow pre-sentencing […]
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – “Substantial Prejudice” to State: Child Testimony, Difficulty Obtaining
State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07 For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Unrefuted indications of the child-complainant’s changed recollection of the details and reluctance to testify, ¶¶8-9, established “substantial prejudice” so as to defeat a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw plea: ¶16 A defendant seeking to withdraw […]
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing — Procedure — Pleading Requirements, Bangert Motion, Generally
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶27 A Bangert Motion. A defendant may invoke Bangert only by alleging that the circuit court failed to fulfill its plea colloquy duties. [16] A Bangert motion warrants an evidentiary hearing if (1) the motion makes “aprima facie showing that [the] plea was accepted without the […]
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.