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
Obstructing / Resisting, § 946.41 – “Lawful Authority,” Suspect’s “Evasion and Flight”
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 […]
§ 948.03(3)(b), Physical Abuse of Child by Recklessly Causing Bodily Harm – Element of Recklessness
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 […]
Using Computer to Facilitate Child Sex-Crime, § 948.075(3) – Elements – Sufficiency of Evidence
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 […]
§ 948.095, Sexual Assault by School Instructional Staff – Elements
State v. David R. Kaster, 2006 WI App 72, PFR filed 4/26/06; prior appeal: 2003 WI App 105 For Kaster: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: Kaster’s prior appeal held that school staff need not be under contract for purposes of § 948.095; providing voluntary services at the time of the alleged assault suffices. This prior holding […]
Arrest – Probable Cause – Specific Examples: Obstructing
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.
Arrest – Test for Custody – Suspect Held in Locked Room More Than Five Hours
State v. Cesar Farias-Mendoza, 2006 WI App 134 For Farias-Mendoza: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: A suspect who had agreed to be transported to police headquarters for questioning was arrested within the meaning of the fourth amendment once the police left him unattended for over five hours in a locked room: ¶23 We disagree […]
Attenuation of Taint — Statements — After Illegal Arrest
State v. Cesar Farias-Mendoza, 2006 WI App 134 For Farias-Mendoza: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The “causal chain” between the defendant’s illegal arrest and his statement wasn’t attenuated where: he gave the statement within 25 minutes of the circumstance establishing the arrest, ¶¶28-29; there were no intervening circumstances, ¶¶30-31; and, there were suggestions of […]
Consent — Acquiescence — Generally
State v. Jed A. Giebel, 2006 WI App 239 For Giebel: Robert E. Bellin, Jr. Issue/Holding: ¶12 The test for voluntariness asks whether consent was given in the “absence of actual coercive, improper police practices designed to overcome the resistance of a defendant.” State v. Clappes, 136 Wis. 2d 222, 245, 401 N.W.2d 759 (1987). In making […]
Consent — Acquiescence — Assertion of Subpoena
State v. Jed A. Giebel, 2006 WI App 239 For Giebel: Robert E. Bellin, Jr. Issue: Whether Giebel’s “consent” to a search of his computer, in response to a police claim of a subpoena and accompanied by an expression that Giebel assumed he had no choice, was voluntary or mere acquiescence to asserted police authority. Holding: ¶17 […]
Judicial Bias — Generally, Structural Error
State v. Justin D. Gudgeon, 2006 WI App 143, PFR filed 7/14/06 For Gudgeon: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶10 A biased tribunal, like the lack of counsel, constitutes a “structural error.” See id. at 8; Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955, 961 (7th Cir. 2005); State v. Carprue, 2004 WI 111, ¶59, 274 Wis. 2d 656, 683 N.W.2d […]
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.