On Point

State v. Sylvester Sigarroa, 2004 WI App 16, PFR filed 1/2/04
For Sigarroa: John Pray, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶14. The State and Sigarroa propose different tests for determining the constitutionality of a warrantless garbage search… .

…

¶16. Both parties are able to cite case law in support of their competing approaches. However, upon close review of the relevant cases,

State v. Eugene M. Perkins, 2004 WI App 213, PFR filed 11/9/04
For Perkins: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue Whether expert testimony is required to establish the victim’s mental illness, an element of § 940.225(2)(c).

Holding: This element may be shown through credible lay opinion testimony:

¶17 Here, the State had to prove four things: (1) that Perkins had sexual contact or intercourse with H.V.;

State v. John F. Powers, 2004 WI App 156
For Powers: Marcus J. Berghahn; John D. Hyland

Issue/Holding: An employee of the Tomah VA Medical Center is not an employee of an in-patient treatment facility within the meaning of §§ 940.225(2)(g), 940.295(2)(b), (c), (h), (k), and 50.135(1), because the Center is not licensed or approved by DHFS, ¶11, and the pending charge under that section must therefore be dismissed,

State v. Walter Leutenegger, 2004 WI App 127
For Leutenegger: Bill Ginsberg

Issue/Holding: ¶21 n. 5:

The State does not challenge the circuit court’s holding that the garage was part of the curtilage of Leutenegger’s house and subject to the warrant requirement. This implicit concession appears appropriate in this case. Published decisions on this topic consistently hold that an attached garage is part of the curtilage. 

State v. Louis D. Thomas, 2004 WI App 115, PFR filed 6/17/04
For Thomas: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: Wis. Const. art. I, § 25 (“right to keep and bear arms”) did not effectively repeal § 941.29 (felon in possession). ¶¶7-12.

Issue/Holding: § 941.29 is neither vague, ¶¶14-18, nor overbroad, ¶¶19-23.

Issue/Holding: § 941.29 doesn’t violate equal protection, ¶¶24-29. (Comparative classes: felons / misdemeanants;

State v. Charles Chvala, 2004 WI App 53, affirmed, 2005 WI 30
For Chvala: James A. Olson, et. al,  Lawton & Cates

Holdings:

• Section 946.12(3), which proscribes exercising a discretionary power inconsistent with the duties of the defendant’s office (in this instance, a state legislator) is not vague. Though those “duties” aren’t identified in any specific statute,

State v. Wyatt Daniel Henning, 2003 WI App 54, reversed on other grounds, 2004 WI 89
For Henning: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶25. We appreciate that State v. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226, 257 Wis. 2d 579, 652 N.W.2d 393, review denied, 2002 WI 121, 257 Wis. 2d 122, 653 N.W.2d 893 (Wis.

State ex rel. Michael J. Thorson v. Schwarz, 2004 WI 96, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Thorson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Someone being held in connection with ch. 980 proceedings is not subject to the escape statute, § 946.42, for absconding from that custody: “¶28 … (T)here is no incorporation of Chapter 980 into Wis. Stat. § 946.42.

State v. John S. Provo, 2004 WI App 97, PFR filed 5/7/04
For Provo: William H. Gergen

Issue/Holding: “… We hold that § 948.07 requires only that the defendant cause the child to go into any vehicle, building, room, or secluded place with the intent to engage in illicit conduct, but not that the child necessarily be first separated from ‘the public,’” ¶1. That is,

State v. Walter Leutenegger, 2004 WI App 127
For Leutenegger: Bill Ginsberg

Issue/Holding:

¶12. A warrantless home entry is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Richter, 235 Wis. 2d 524, ¶28. The government bears the burden of establishing that a warrantless entry into a home occurred pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. See State v.