On Point

State v. Deborah J.Z., 228 Wis.2d 468, 596 N.W.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed by equally divided vote, 225 Wis.2d 33, 590 N.W.2d 711 (1999)
For Deborah J.Z.: Sally Hoelzel

Holding: An unborn child is not a “human being” under the controlling definition in § 939.22(16), and the defendant therefore can’t be charged with attempting to kill and injure her fetus by excessive drinking during her pregnancy.

State v. Audrey A. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Edmunds: Dean A. Strang

Holding: “Utter disregard for human life,” an element of first-degree recklessness, derives from the old second-degree (depraved murder) statute. It imposes an objective test. Therefore, in this shaken baby death, it’s irrelevant whether Edmunds had “personal knowledge that vigorously shaking a twenty-two pound infant could subject her to the risk of serious injury”: a reasonable person would have known of the risk.

State v. Derrick D. Johannes, 229 Wis. 2d 215, 598 N.W.2d 299 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Johannes: Gregory A. Petit

Holding: Johannes was convicted of several counts related to criminally negligent operation of a vehicle. The state’s theory was that Johannes crossed a centerline when he either fell asleep or played with a stereo. He now argues that the state had to prove that he knew that such conduct would cause him to cross the centerline.

State v. Charles Dante Higgs, 230 Wis.2d 1, 601 N.W.2d 653 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Higgs: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether splashing the victim’s face with urine satisfies the battery element of bodily harm.

Holding: The mere fact that urine struck the victim’s face isn’t enough to establish bodily harm, but the victim’s testimony that he felt stinging and burning satisfied the element.

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,