On Point

State v. Joseph M. Espinoza, 2002 WI App 51, subsequently overruled by State v. Brent R. Reed, 2005 WI 53
For Espinoza: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a suspect’s mere denial of guilt of the crime under investigation may in and of itself establish probable cause for the separate crime of obstructing, § 946.41(1).

Holding:

¶20.

State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski

Issue/Holding:

¶20 We reject Venema’s argument that a contract has to be in existence in order for a violation to occur under Wis. Stat. § 946.13(1)(a). Such an interpretation is undermined by the plain meaning of the statutory language. The common meaning of “negotiate” is to “communicate with another party for the purpose of reaching an understanding[.]”

State v. Glenn F. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, affirming 2001 WI App 99, 242 Wis. 2d 585, 627 N.W.2d 213
For Schwebke: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue: Whether private, anonymous mailings to several individuals may support prosecution for disorderly conduct.

Holding:

¶26… (T)he plain language of the statute does not specifically require a ‘public’ disturbance. Instead,

State v. Paul K. Shanks, 2002 WI App 93, PFR filed 4/11/02

Issue/Holding: Evidence held sufficient to support conviction for sexual assault of child, notwithstanding inconsistencies and equivocations in complainant’s testimony (court stressing that certain pretrial statements she made did implicate defendant), ¶25. Court also finds evidence sufficient on element of intent: “Intent to become sexually aroused or gratified can be inferred when a man places his finger in the vagina of a two-year-old girl,”

State v. John T. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, affirming unpublished decision
For Trochinski: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether § 948.11(2) is unconstitutional because it doesn’t require proof of knowledge of the age of the person to whom harmful materials are displayed (minority being the sole differentiating factor between noncriminal/protected and criminal conduct.

Holding:

¶39. We conclude that the constitutionality of Wis.

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89
For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding:

¶58. Applying these standards, we agree with the court of appeals that the 28 counts to which Multaler pled were not identical in fact. Although some of the downloaded image files contained multiple images,

State v. Brian B. Burke, 2002 WI App 291, PFR filed 11/29/02
For Burke: Robert H. Friebert

Issue/Holding:

¶22. We conclude that the members of the Wisconsin Constitutional Convention did not intend to create a legislative privilege from criminal arrest and prosecution when they included article IV, section 15 in the Wisconsin Constitution. The phrase “treason, felony and breach of the peace” in that section was intended to mean “all crimes.”

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an arrest for a traffic stop, lawful at inception, was unlawfully prolonged in order to obtain the driver’s consent to a strip search not reasonably related to the traffic violation.

Holding: This issue is “closely related” to one raised in State v. Gaulrapp,

State v. Charles A. Wallace, 2002 WI App 61
For Wallace: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Wallace voluntarily consented, or merely acquiesced, to a strip search following arrest for a minor traffic violation.

Holding:

¶19. The police made their request during the booking process and before Wallace’s bond had been posted. We concur with the circuit court’s conclusion that thirty minutes,

State v. John Tomlinson, Jr., 2002 WI 91, affirming 2002 WI App 212, 247 Wis. 2d 682, 635 N.W.2d 201
For Tomlinson: John J. Gray

Issue: Whether the actions of the defendant’s minor daughter, in opening the door to the police and then walking back into the house when they asked for permission to enter, amounted consent for the police to enter.