On Point

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 220 Wis. 2d 396, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Sveum: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding:

Johnson received several hang-up telephone calls on April 16, 1996. Sveum told Walls that he made the calls, and Walls relayed this information to Johnson. When asked how the phone calls made her feel, Johnson testified: “Scared. It was happening again.” She also testified that she “was very afraid”

State v. Sylvester Hughes, 218 Wis. 2d 538, 582 N.W.2d 49 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Hughes: Michael H. Kopp

Issue/Holding:

Accordingly, precisely because persons who use wheelchairs, and those who do not, deserve equal treatment and protection under the laws prohibiting theft,9 we conclude that theft “from the person” encompasses the taking of property from the wheelchair of one sitting in the wheelchair at the time of the taking.10

10 In this case,

State v. Daniel T. O’Shea, 221 Wis. 2d 418, 585 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1998)
For O’Shea: Jeffrey D. Knickmeier

Issue/Holding: Forgery, §.943.38(2), does not require that the offender act with intent to defraud.

Our first inquiry must be to the language of the statute, particularly to the language in subsection 2 that refers to subsection 1.  Subsection 2 states that an offender violates the subsection when he or she knowingly “utters … any forged writing or object mentioned in sub.

State v. Daniel T. O’Shea, 221 Wis. 2d 418, 585 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1998)
For O’Shea: Jeffrey D. Knickmeier

Issue/Holding:

Shea alleges that § 943.41(3), Stats., requires the State to prove that the offender acquired actual possession of a cardholder’s financial transaction card without consent. …

We begin with the language of § 943.41(5)(a), Stats., which reads as follows:

1.

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 220 Wis. 2d 396, 584 N.W.2d 137 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Sveum: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding:

Sveum contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that “[t]he act [was] accompanied by a credible threat.” The only threats alleged in this case occurred on October 16, 1994, when Sveum, among other things, threatened to “blow [Johnson’s] head off.” The harassing conduct at issue,

State v. Gary R. Brunette, 220 Wis. 431, 583 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Brunette: Kevin Schram

Issue/Holding: Seven-year old’s testimony that she was touched on or near her “privates” and “potty place” sufficient to sustain conviction for first-degree sexual assault.

State v. Teresa L. Bellows, 218 Wis. 2d 614, 582 N.W.2d 53 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bellows: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

…The State was required to prove that: (1) Bellows was responsible for the welfare of her three children; (2) she intentionally contributed to their neglect; and (3) the children were under the age of eighteen. See Wis J I-Criminal 2150. Only the second element was contested and now forms the basis for Bellows’

State v. Dale Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Gruen: Scott F. Anderson

Issue/Holding: Temporary detention of Gruen based on reasonable suspicion that he had caused an automobile accident while intoxicated was not converted into arrest, where the 1st officer detained him for no more than 15 minutes until a 2nd officer, from the appropriate jurisdiction could arrive; and, Gruen consented to sit in the police van to get out of the cold until the 2nd officer arrived.

State v. Luis E. Bermudez, 221 Wis. 2d 338, 585 N.W.2d 628 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bermudez: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Consent given following illegal entry was, though, voluntary, the fruit of the illegality:

When applying the attenuation theory, the following must be considered: (1) the temporal proximity of the misconduct and the subsequent consent to search, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances,

State v. Timothy R. Stankus, 220 Wis. 2d 232, 582 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Stankus: Steven J. Watson

Issue/Holding: The number of officers present does not, by itself, conclusively demonstrate coercion, but is a factor to consider among others. Thus, consent was validly given following a valid traffic stop that had lasted only 5 to 10 minutes before the police sought consent to search the car.