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
Defenses – Mistake, § 939.43(1) – Relation to Reckless Conduct
State v. Quentrell E. Williams, 2006 WI App 212 For Williams: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Because “recklessly” causing harm to a child, § 948.03(b), is determined solely from an objective point of view, evidence related to whether the actor “subjectively thought his [disciplinary action] was reasonable parental discipline” is irrelevant, including evidence […]
Defenses – Imperfect Self-Defense, Generally
State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10 For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶23 At trial, Kramer asserted he acted in self-defense, and the jury was instructed on imperfect self-defense. A successful defense based on imperfect self-defense reduces first-degree intentional homicide to second-degree intentional homicide. [12] The test is subjective; a defendant must […]
Fines — Attorney Fees, Distinguished From
State v. Kevin J. Helsper, 2006 WI App 243 For Helsper: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶20 Fines and attorney fee obligations involve different State purposes, and therefore a different constitutional analysis. When analyzing the constitutionality of a fee recoupment statute, the court is to consider, among other things, the rationality of the […]
Common Law Defenses – Laches Bar
State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remandingsummary order of court of appeals For Coleman: Brian Kinstler Issue/Holding: ¶28 Prihoda, Sawyer, Lohr and Schafer all employ a three-element test where the first element is unreasonable delay in bringing the claim and the other two elements apply to the party asserting laches: lack of knowledge (that the claim […]
Hit-and-Run, § 346.67(1) – Element of “Accident”: May Encompass Intentional Conduct
State v. Stephen D. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214, PFR filed 10/26/06 For Harmon: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: ¶14 The “two clear purposes” of Wisconsin’s hit-and-run statute are: (1) to ensure that injured persons may have medical or other attention with the least possible delay; and (2) to require the disclosure of information so that […]
Hit-and-Run, § 346.67(1) – Reporting Requirement as Related to Self-Incrimination
State v. Stephen D. Harmon, 2006 WI App 214, PFR filed 10/26/06 For Harmon: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: The § 346.67(1) requirement that a driver provide name, address, vehicle registration number, and driver’s license “to the person struck” does not violate the 5thamendment under controlling authority of California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 426 (1971), notwithstanding that the statute […]
Defenses – Issue Preclusion — “Actually Litigated” Requirement: OWI – Prior Judicial Overturn of Administrative Suspension, Not Necessarily Preclusive as to Subsequent Prosecution for Drunk Driving
City of Sheboygan v. Steven Nytsch, 2006 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/11/06 For Nytsch: Chad A. Lanning Issue: Whether a prior judicial review of a driver’s license suspension, overturning the administrative suspension, had a preclusive effect on the issue of probable cause to arrest for drunk driving in the subsequent prosecution for that offense. Holding: ¶11 […]
OWI, § 346.63(1)(am) – “Operating” – Merely Sitting in Parked Car, Engine Running, Not Enough
Village of Cross Plains v. Kristin J. Haanstad, 2006 WI 16, reversing unpublished decision For Haanstad: John M. Gerlach Issue: Whether sitting in the driver’s seat of a running, parked car is, without more, “operating” a motor vehicle within § 346.63. Holding: ¶15 The term “operate” is defined in § 346.63(3)(b), which reads: “‘Operate’” means the physical manipulation […]
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity, Generally
State v. Alvin M. Moore, 2006 WI App 61, PFR filed 3/21/06 For Moore: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 Charges are multiplicitous if they charge a single criminal offense in more than one count. State v. Grayson, 172 Wis. 2d 156, 159, 493 N.W.2d 23 (1992). Claims of multiplicity are analyzed using a two-prong test […]
Double Jeopardy – Prosecutorial Misconduct – Provoking Mistrial, Generally
State v. Jose M. Jaimes, 2006 WI App 93, PFR filed 5/11/06 For Jaimes: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: Retrial is ordinarily not barred when the defendant successfully requests mistrial, except where prosecutorial overreaching, comprised of the following elements, has been shown: the prosecutor’s has “ a culpable state of mind in the nature of an awareness that […]
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.