On Point

State v. Michael Wilson, 229 Wis.2d 256, 600 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wilson: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue/Holding: Officer’s invasion of home’s curtilage, where he smelled marijuana burning inside, held unlawful. Court enumerates various factors relevant to extent of curtilage protection, and stresses that fourth amendment protects both home and area around it. In this case, the officer went into a backyard area where children played,

State v. Richard D. Yakes, 226 Wis.2d 425, 595 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1999)

Issue/Holding: Yakes owned a commercial enterprise, on whose property was a dumpster owned by the disposal company. The police, acting without a warrant, seized evidence from the dumpster. Yakes, the court of appeals holds, did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy as to his trash. The court adopts United States v. Hall,

State v. Earl L. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Miller: Eduardo M. Borda

Issue: Whether an act may satisfy the “substantial factor” test for causation element if it merely plays a prominent rather than lone role in the proscribed result.

Holding: Causation is satisfied by any significant, not necessarily the sole, factor resulting in death.

Miller was convicted of operating a vehicle without owner’s consent resulting in death (carjacking),

State v. Keith Jones, 228 Wis.2d 593, 598 N.W.2d 259 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Jones: Edward J. Hunt

Holding: In the course of making their get-away, Jones’s shoplifting codefendant allegedly threatened Shogren, a pursuing guard. Notwithstanding the codefendant’s acquittal, Jones’s conviction for armed robbery is sustained against a sufficiency of evidence challenge.

Here, there was sufficient evidence to convict Jones.  That the jury acquitted Patterson does not necessarily mean that it discounted Shogren’s testimony. 

State v. David J. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Gardner: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Holding: Gardner was convicted of burglary while armed, § 943.10(2), and argues that the crime requires a nexus of weapon to burglary. The argument fails, largely on authority of State v. Norris, 214 Wis. 2d 25, 571 N.W.2d 857 (Ct. App. 1997).

Gardner next challenges his conviction claiming that “due process of law and fundamental fairness demand” that there be some nexus between the commission of the underlying crime and the fact that the accused was carrying a weapon. 

State v. Louis Taylor, 226 Wis.2d 490, 595 N.W.2d 56 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Taylor: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue:  Whether a positive urine test, while the subject is under  is on bail with a no drug consumption bond condition, is sufficient to support a felony bail jumping conviction.

Holding:/Analysis:

“Where the State prosecutes an individual under Wis. Stat. § 946.49 for bail jumping,

State v. Suzette M. Ward, 228 Wis.2d 301, 596 N.W.2d 887 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Ward: Patricia L. Arreazola

Holding: The § 948.02(3) element, “person responsible for the welfare of a child,” was properly defined in jury instructions as “person employed or used by one legally responsible for the child’s welfare.” Payment, that is, isn’t required. Evidence of this element is therefore held sufficient, though the child care arrangement wasn’t fiscal.

State v. Rodney G. Zivcic, 229 Wis.2d 119, 598 N.W.2d 565 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Zivcic: John J. Carter

Issue/Holding: A sheriff’s deputy has authority to arrest in a city located in the county.

Easy enough. Plus, there’s significant authority allowing a an officer to peform an out-of-jurisdiction arrest under a “citizen’s arrest” rationale: see State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47 (discussion of point,

State v. David J. Lenz, 230 Wis.2d 529, 602 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Lenz: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue: Whether intercepts of tax refunds can be considered payments toward support obligations.

Holding: The nonsupport statute doesn’t require that payments be made “voluntarily,” and tax refund intercepts therefore count.

“The intercepts are payments from Lenz’s assets. Although he did not directly make them,

State v. Christopher M. Clutter, 230 Wis.2d 472, 602 N.W.2d 324 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Clutter: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Issue: Whether the nonsupport defense of inability to pay is viable by showing “lack of financial resources alone.”

Holding: “(L)ack of financial resources alone is insufficient to demonstrate inability to pay.”

Inability to pay is a defense to nonsupport. Clutter, on postconviction motion,