Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

3. Evidence

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: ¶45      We further reject Stank’s argument that insufficient evidence existed to support the “intent to deliver” element of count two. According to Peasley v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 224, 229, 231-32, 265 N.W.2d 506 (1978), the finder of fact may consider… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Rickey Eugene Pinkard, 2005 WI App 226 For Pinkard: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: Someone holding drugs for another person and planning to return the drugs to that person intends to deliver within the meaning of § 961.41(1m). State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496, 525 N.W.2d 264 (1995) (conspiracy to deliver not supported where only… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: Proof of the controlled substance is sufficient where a “presumptive” test is followed by a “confirmatory” one (State v. Dye, 215 Wis. 2d 281, 572 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1997), followed), with the PDR being used to establish the presumption: ¶42      Here, the… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. John L. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998) For Griffin: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Like other jurisdictions, to be found guilty of possession of a controlled substance in Wisconsin, the defendant must have had the substance under his or her control and must have knowingly… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. John L. Griffin, 220 Wis. 2d 371, 584 N.W.2d 127 (Ct. App. 1998) For Griffin: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Griffin was charged with drug possession. In State v. Pozo, 198 Wis.2d 705, 714, 544 N.W.2d 228, 232 (Ct. App. 1995), we stated that although a large amount of cash on… Read More

{ 0 comments }

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/Holding: Viewing the facts most favorable to the prosecution requires us to assume that, despite her denial, Henthorn in fact altered the prescription, changing the refill number from “1” to “11.” She then… Read More

{ 0 comments }