On Point

State v. Lance Terry Konrath, 218 Wis.2d 290, 577 N.W.2d 601 (1998), affirming unpub. decision
For Konrath: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding: Forfeiture statute § 346.65(6) authorizes a civil, remedial in rem proceeding, and is not facially unconstitutional; because the statute is civil, double jeopardy doesn’t apply; the proceeding provides sufficient notice to satisfy due process (with caution that immediate seizure appropriate in certain circumstances).

State v. Walter A. Kirch, 222 Wis. 2d 598, 587 N.W.2d 919 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Kirch: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue/Holding:

The federal courts continue to consider possession, title, control and financial stake when determining ownership under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). … We therefore consider these factors when determining ownership for the purposes of § 973.075(1)(b)2, Stats.

While Sharon Kirch is listed on the Chevrolet Suburban’s title as the owner,

State v. Melvin Thompson, 222 Wis. 2d 179, 585 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Thompson: Phillip J. Brehm

Issue/Holding:

No published Wisconsin case has specifically addressed whether one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a hospital emergency room or operating room. Accordingly, we analyze the question under the general approach for determining whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area where evidence is gathered.

Kelly L. McCray, 220 Wis. 2d 705, 583 N.W.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1998)
For McCray: Paul LaZotte

Issue/Holding: A guest who has exceeded his authorized stay loses any expectation of privacy in the residence

State v. Linda M. Henthorn, 218 Wis. 2d 526, 581 N.W.2d 544 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Henthorn: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

In Hamiel v. State, 92 Wis.2d 656, 666, 285 N.W.2d 639, 646 (1979), the supreme court outlined the two requirements for proof of an attempted crime:

[I]t must … be shown that: (1) the defendant’s actions in furtherance of the crime clearly demonstrate,

State v. Steenberg Homes, 223 Wis.2d 511, 589 N.W.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1998)

Holding: Corporations are subject to criminal liability under Wis. Stat. § 940.10

State v. Damone J. Block, 222 Wis. 2d 586, 587 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Block: James M. Weber

Issue/Holding:

Block’s next claim is that there was insufficient evidence to prove all of the elements of assault by a prisoner. Those elements are: (1) the defendant was a prisoner at the time of the offense, (2) the victim was an employee of the institution,

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.