On Point

State v. Eric Benjamin Gardner, 2006 WI App 92
For Gardner: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding1: The elements of § 940.25(1)(am) – the defendant operated a vehicle with “a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood, and the operation of the vehicle caused great bodily harm to the victim – do not create any presumption so as to relieve the State of its burden of proof,

State v. Ronnie L. Thums, 2006 WI App 173
For Thums: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Use of a weapon is an element of stalking with a dangerous weapon, and the offense has therefore not been committed until the weapon has been employed (though the offense of stalking has been), ¶8 and id., n. 2.

State v. Alvin M. Moore, 2006 WI App 61, PFR filed 3/21/06
For Moore: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an effort at dissuading a child witness which was directed at the child’s mother satisfies the elements of attempted intimidation of a witness, § 940.42.

Holding:

¶10      To prove attempted intimidation of Tamika, the State was required to prove that: (1) Tamika was a witness;

State v. Alvin M. Moore, 2006 WI App 61, PFR filed 3/21/06
For Moore: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether separate counts are supported for attempted intimidation of the same witness, representing each separate letter sent by the defendant to the witness imploring her not to testify against him.

Holding: Multiple counts are permissible, at least where each count is based on distinct facts,

State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8
For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding1:

¶23      Searcy claims the only evidence linking him to the Hoffman burglary was his fingerprint on the window screen in the Hoffmans’ bedroom. He argues that the mere presence of his fingerprint, standing alone, is insufficient to connect him to the burglary. Because there is other evidence supporting Searcy’s conviction,

State v. Anna Annina, 2006 WI App 202
For Van Hout: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Although police entry into the defendant’s house was pursuant to a search warrant later declared to be invalid, the defendant’s acts in response to that entry amounted to disorderly conduct which did allow for an arrest under lawful police authority; defendant could therefore be convicted for resisting a lawful arrest for disorderly conduct,

State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: By fleeing from a police command to stop, the defendant provided probable cause to arrest for obstructing, and the officer therefore was acting with “lawful authority” under § 946.41(1), ¶¶77-78.

Also see U.S. v. Muhammad,

State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Refusal to obey an officer’s command to halt reinforces extant reasonable suspicion to stop the individual:

¶73      Officer Alfredson testified that after he ordered Young to return to the car the first time, Young “turned and started walking away.”

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 of how the actor was him or herself disciplined as a child,

State v. Dennis Charles Schulpius, 2006 WI App 263
For Schulpius: Bridget Boyle

Issue/Holding:

¶10      … The subsection has two elements:  (1) the defendant must have done something that shows that he or she had, as phrased by § 948.075(1), the “intent to have sexual contact or sexual intercourse” with someone whom he or she believed, or had reason to believe, was younger than sixteen,