On Point

State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶19      Wisconsin Stat. § 940.10(1) provides that a person who “causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a vehicle is guilty of a Class G felony.” The term “negligent” as used in § 940.10 requires proof of “criminal negligence.” See Wis.

State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶34      In sum, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence for jurors to reasonably conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Schutte’s conduct prior to the collision was criminally negligent within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §§ 939.25 and 940.10. The State’s evidence established not only that Schutte’s car crossed the highway centerline,

State v. Nicole Schutte, 2006 WI App 135, PFR filed 7/21/06
For Schutte: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court invaded the jury’s province when it instructed that the court of appeals had held in State v. Johannes, 229 Wis. 2d 215, 598 N.W.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1999) that a criminally negligent act had occurred when a car drove across the centerline and that unanimous agreement was unnecessary as to why that act occurred.

State v. Reinier A. Ravesteijn, 2006 WI App 250
For Ravesteijn: Rudolph L. Oldeschulte

Issue/Holding: Kidnapping is mitigated from a Class B to Class C felony if the victim is released without permanent physical injury prior to the first witness’s testimony, ¶17. When accepting a guilty plea to Class B kidnapping the court must ascertain a factual basis for excluding the Class C offense, at least where there is some evidence in the record to support it,

State v. Delano L. Terrell, 2006 WI App 166
For Terrell: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler, Christopher M. Eippert

Issue: Whether a sheriff’s deputy assigned to work as a court bailiff is a “correctional staff member” so as to come within § 940.225(2)(h).

Holding: A “correctional staff member” is defined as an individual who works at a correctional institution, § 940.225(5)(ad). Terrell was a deputy assigned to work as a courthouse bailiff—a courthouse isn’t a correctional institution,

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,