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.

§ 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 […]

§ 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 […]

Crimes: § 948.22(2) (2001-02), Non-Support – Elements – “Court of Competent Jurisdiction”

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116 For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1: ¶15      Here, too, we examine the statute providing for the crime, Wis. Stat. § 948.22(2), to determine the elements of the crime of failure to pay child support, and we focus on […]

§ 948.22(2) (2001-02), Non-Support – “Court of Competent Jurisdiction” – Claim Preclusion

State v. Thomas Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2005 WI 104, reversing 2004 WI App 116 For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Smith’s unsuccessful prior challenge to the court support order bars him, under principles of claim preclusion, from challenging the validity of the order in the present non-support prosecution, ¶¶21-23. The court […]

Community Caretaker Exception to Warrant Requirement – Entry of Residence to Check on Occupant

State v. George Toland Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249 For Ziedonis: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Police, responding to a “loose animal” complaint became sufficiently alarmed by the possibility the dogs’ owner was in need of assistance that their warrantless entry was justified under the community caretaker doctrine: ¶27      Like in Ferguson, the police “utilized alternative […]

Community Caretaker Exception to Warrant Requirement – Generally

State v. George Toland Ziedonis, 2005 WI App 249 For Ziedonis: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶14      One such exception is the community caretaker function, which arises when the actions of the police are “totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” State v. Anderson, […]

Attenuation of Taint – Arrest in Home, Payton Violation

State v. David J. Roberson, 2005 WI App 195, affirmed on other grounds, 2006 WI 80 For Roberson: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: “(E)vidence acquired outside of the home after an in-home arrest in violation of Payton is not a product of the illegal governmental activity, if officers had probable cause to arrest developed apart from the illegal […]

Consent – Coercion — Scope

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199 For Kelley: Gregory Bates Issue/Holding: ¶13      Kelley also argues that the search violated the scope of consent. He contends that an accelerant and phone handset could not have been found under his bed and therefore that place should not have been searched. We disagree. … ¶14      […]

Consent – Coercion — Police Failure to Inform of Real Purpose of Search

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199 For Kelley: Gregory Bates Issue/Holding: ¶12      Kelley contends that the police should have disclosed that they had reason to believe he had child pornography in his apartment. We are not persuaded that the detectives’ failure to disclose all their suspicions invalidated an otherwise validly obtained consent. […]

TPR – Substitution of Judge

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57 Issue/Holding: ¶11. The trial court ruled and the County now argues that Terrance’s substitution request was untimely because it was not filed before “hearing of any preliminary contested matters” under Wis. Stat. § 801.58. Terrance argues the applicable statute is Wis. Stat. § 48.29, which […]

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.