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.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – General
State v. Earnest Alexander, 2005 WI App 235
For Alexander: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether description of a shooting suspect as a black male wearing black skull cap, black jacket and dark pants, more than a day after the shooting permitted the stop of Alexander ten blocks east of the crime scene, wearing a black skull cap, black waist-length jacket, and black pants, along with his “perceived hesitation [and] aversion to eye contact.”
Holding: The court considers the six factors listed in State v.
Reasonable Suspicion – Stop – Basis – Loitering
State v. Damian Darnell Washington, 2005 WI App 123
For Washington: Diana M. Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶17 … While the officer testified that he was going to cite Washington for loitering, he did not demonstrate a reasonable, articulable basis for doing so. Investigating a vague complaint of loitering and observing Washington in the area near a house that the officer believed to be vacant,
§ 940.09, Homicide by Intoxicated use of Vehicle (Boat) – Homicide by Intoxicated Use of Vehicle (Boat) – Constitutionality
State v. Peter A. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, reversing unpublished decision
For Fonte: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: § 940.09 is constitutional, as against a challenge that it relieves the State of proving a causal connection between intoxication and death; reasoning in, and result of, State v. Caibaiosai, 122 Wis. 2d 587, 363 N.W.2d 574 (1985) reaffirmed, ¶38.
§ 940.09, Homicide by Intoxicated use of Vehicle (Boat) – Sufficiency of Proof of “Operating”
State v. Peter A. Fonte, 2005 WI 77, reversing unpublished decision
For Fonte: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Fonte’s emotionally charged statement to a police officer at the scene that he “thought the boat was out of gear,” corroborated by a companion’s “grudging admission that he had agreed that Fonte was operating the boat” is sufficient to satisfy the § 940.09 element of “operating,” ¶21.
§ 940.19(5), Aggravated Battery — Instructions: Defining “Great Bodily Harm,” § 939.22(14)
State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243
For Ellington: Andrea Taylor Cornwall
Issue/Holding: The following instruction is sufficient: “Great bodily harm means serious bodily injury. You, the jury, are to alone to determine whether the bodily injury in your judgment is serious.” (La Barge v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 327, 333, 246 N.W.2d 794, 797 (1976) and Cheatham v. State,
§ 940.22(2) (2001-02): Sexual Exploitation by Therapist – Elements, Generally – Ongoing Therapist-Patient Relationship
State v. Michael A. DeLain, 2005 WI 52, affirming, as modified, 2004 WI App 79
For DeLain: Robert R. Henak
Issue/Holding:
¶9 To obtain a conviction for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 940.22(2), the State must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant was or held himself or herself out to be a therapist; (2) that the defendant had intentional sexual contact with a patient or client;
Obstructing, § 946.41 – Exculpatory Denial Exception Doesn’t Extend to False Accusation of Others
State v. Brent R. Reed, 2005 WI 53, affirming as modified 2004 WI App 98, and overruling State v. Joseph M. Espinoza, 2002 WI App 51
For Reed: David H. Weber
Issue/Holding:
¶21 … Wisconsin JI——Criminal 1766A (2003) accurately sets forth the elements of obstructing an officer based on giving false information to police as follows:
1.
§ 947.01, Disorderly Conduct – Interference with Right to Protest in Public Place
Ralph Ovadal v. City of Madison, 416 F.3d 351 (7th Cir 2005)
Issue/Holding: Use of disorderly conduct to Overdal’s peaceful protest (displaying large signs on Beltline pedestrian overpass) was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to him; however, remand required to determine whether the ban was content neutral and narrowly tailored.
§ 948.03(2)(b) (2001-02), Harm to Child – Elements, Proof
State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115
For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas
Issue/Holding: “¶22 … The crime of physical abuse of a child, as applied to the matter at hand, requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the following three elements: (1) Kimberly caused bodily harm to Jasmine, (2) Kimberly intentionally caused such harm, and (3) Jasmine had not attained the age of eighteen years at the time of the alleged offense.
§ 948.21(1), Neglect, Causing Death – Element of “Person Responsible for Child’s Welfare,” § 948.01(3)
State v. Marketta A. Hughes, 2005 WI App 155, PFR filed
For Hughes: John T. Wasielewski
Issue/Holding:
¶16 We conclude that the plain language of the statute makes clear that a seventeen-year-old employed by a parent to care for the parent’s child can be a person responsible for the welfare of the child. The record reflects that Marketta freely chose to assume responsibility for the welfare of Bryan at her mother’s request.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.