On Point

State v. Richard W. Delaney, 2003 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Delaney: Joseph R. Cincotta

Issue/Holding:

¶1 … Specifically, Delaney asks this court to determine whether Wis. Stat. § 939.62 (1999-2000) was properly applied to his already enhanced OWI offense under Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(c), based on the existence of a past non-OWI offense, so as to enhance Delaney’s penalty twice for count one of his judgment of conviction.

State v. Jimmie Davison, 2003 WI 89, reversing 2002 WI App 109, 235 Wis. 2d 715, 647 N.W.2d 390
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School, Criminal Appeals Project

Issue/Holding: The legislature did not intend to preclude cumulative punishments for both aggravated battery, § 940.10(6) and battery by prisoner, § 940.20(1), for the same conduct. ¶¶47-111.

State v. Waylon Picotte, 2003 WI 42, on certification
For Picotte: John T. Wasielewski

Issue: Whether conviction for homicide is barred because the victim did not die within a year and a day of infliction of the fatal injuries.

Holding:

¶5. We disagree with the circuit court and hold that the defendant’s conviction in this case is barred by the common-law year-and-a-day rule.

State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate 

Issue: Whether § 941.23 is facially unconstitutional as impermissibly infringing on the right to bear arms.

Holding: The constitutional right of an individual to bear arms, Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25, being “fundamental” in nature, ¶20, the question is whether § 941.23 “reasonably” restricts that right, which in turn requires balancing the interests involved.

State v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, on certification
For Cole: Michael Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate 

Issue: Whether § 941.23 is unconstitutional as applied to Cole.

Holding:

¶48. Cole claims that he was carrying the weapons because he had been “the victim of a brutal beating when he was younger and he did not feel safe in the neighborhood.” (Pet’r Br. at 3.) He did not assert that he had the weapons in the car in response to any specific or imminent threat.

State v. Terry L. Dumler, 2003 WI 62, affirming summary order
For Dumler: Todd G. Smith

Issue/Holding:

¶ 1.… The central issue before this court is whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in refusing to reduce Dumler’s child support payments in light of Dumler’s incarceration and resulting change in income. Although we find it appropriate for a court to consider incarceration when reviewing a request for modification,

State v. John P. Hunt, 2003 WI 81, reversing unpublished order of court of appeals
For Hunt: Rex R. Anderegg

Issue/Holding:

¶86. We have ruled that “Wisconsin courts permit a more liberal admission of other crimes evidence in sexual assault cases than in other cases.” Davidson, 236 Wis. 2d 537, ¶44; State v. Hammer, 2000 WI 92,

State v. Matthew J. Knapp, 2003 WI 121, on certification
For Knapp: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding:

¶184. We find no clear error in the circuit court’s determination that the third-party hearsay evidence in item 21(a) of Knapp’s offer of proof comes within the recent perception exception under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2),29 to the hearsay rule. Farrell’s inability to recall, 12 years after the fact,

State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶16. Weed argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting Michael’s statement regarding unloading the .357 because the statement did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2). Weed principally argues that Michael’s statement was inadmissible under the exception due to the lack of a proper foundation;

State v. Sherrie S. Tucker, 2003 WI 12, on certification
For Tucker: Paul LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶32. At the postconviction hearing, the circuit court upheld its prior ruling that McCray’s statements were not admissible as either statements against penal interest or under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. The circuit court noted that McCray’s statements attempted to exculpate Tucker without inculpating himself.