On Point

State v. Jason J. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77, 244 Wis. 2d 523, 628 N.W.2d 801, affirming State v. Trawitzki, 2000 WI App 205, 238 Wis. 2d 795, 618 N.W.2d 884
For Trawitzki: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether multiple charges of theft of firearms taken at the same time, and multiple charges of concealing those firearms, violated double jeopardy.

Holding: Multiplicity is a two-part test: determine whether the offenses are identical in both law and fact;

State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, if a seizure did occur when the police told a potentially vulnerable juvenile girl in a high crime area to “stay put,” it was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.

Holding: (Lead, three-vote opinion:) Given the “strong public interest in locating runaway children and juveniles,” along with the perception that “(a) juvenile [such as Kelsey],

State v. Shane M. Ferguson, 2001 WI App 102
For Ferguson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the warrantless, forced police entry of a locked closet was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.

Holding:

¶12 After applying the Anderson test, we are satisfied that the police actions here qualified as ‘community caretaker.’ A search, to qualify as a community caretaker exception,

State v. Alfredo Ramirez, 2001 WI App 158, PFR filed 7/11/01
For Ramirez: Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski

Issue: Whether § 943.201(2) creates a continuing offense such that, as applied to Ramirez, it did not violate the ex post facto clause even though the statute was promulgated after he commenced the activity that formed the basis for the charge.

Holding:

¶18. We hold that Ramirez obtained money in the form of wages,

State v. Deborah J. Zimmerman, 2001 WI App 238
For Zimmerman: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether someone in the custody of a probation or parole agent “is in actual custody” for purposes of the escape statute, § 946.42.

Holding:

¶5. To be guilty of escape, Zimmerman must be found to be in custody. Wis JI-Criminal 1773. The relevant language of the escape statute defines custody to include “without limitation actual custody of an institution …

State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64
For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a perjury conviction.

Holding: Proof of the elements of perjury — “(1) An oral statement while under oath; (2) The statement was false when made; (3) The defendant did not believe that the statement was true when he or she made it;

State v. Leslie M. Haynes, 2001 WI App 266, PFR filed 11/2/01
For Haynes: Gerald F. Kuchler

Issue: Whether “the arresting officer from Waukesha county was not acting in his official capacity or with lawful authority as a police officer when he asked [Haynes] to perform field sobriety tests, arrested her and transported her to a hospital for blood tests because the detention and arrest took place in Milwaukee county.”

State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For Douglas D.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether purely written speech may be punished as disorderly conduct, § 947.01, even where no disturbance results.

Holding: The disorderly conduct statute, applied to speech alone, is neither overbroad nor “underbroad” (i.e., discriminating on the basis of content),

State v. Kevin S. Meehan, 2001 WI App 119
For Meehan: Pamela Moorshead, Buting & Williams

Issue: Whether charges of completed and attempted sexual assault of the same victim were multiplicitous.

Holding:

¶34. The nature of the two acts was different because the attempted sexual assault was foiled by the victim’s resistance. There was some time separation between the two acts, sufficient for a question and answer.

State v. Timothy P. Koenck, 2001 WI App 93, 242 Wis. 2d 693, 626 N.W.2d 359
For Koenck: Lew Wasserman

Issue: “(W)hether in a prosecution under § 948.07 the charges must be dismissed because the State cannot prove that the victim had not attained the age of eighteen [because the ‘victim’ is fictitious].” ¶7.

Holding:

¶28 Within the contemplation of WIS. STAT. § 948.07,