Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

c. Manifest object

State v. Christopher A. Mason, 2018 WI App 57; case activity (including briefs) Applying its newly minted decision in State v. Stewart, 2018 WI App 41, the court of appeals holds that the “representing” element of identity theft under § 943.201 can be proven with the same evidence that proves the defendant “used” the identifying… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Michel L. Wortman, 2017 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs) A glitch in the OWI penalty statute appears to suggest that OWI 7th and greater offenses don’t allow for a fine, but only for the imposition of the forfeiture provided for first-offense OWI. The court of appeals concludes otherwise. The court also rejects Wortman’s… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Review of a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs) Issues (from the petition for review and petition for cross-review)  1.  Whether the offense under § 343.44(2)(ar)4. can be punished as either a misdemeanor or a felony in order to resolve ambiguity in the statutory language when the legislature’s intent was to create a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Luna Torres v. Lynch, USSC No. 14-1096, 2016 WL 2903424 (May 19, 2016), affirming Torres v. Holder, 764 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) The definition of “aggravated felony” under federal immigration law, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), has 21 subsections covering dozens of different crimes. Many of the subsections refer to offenses “described in”… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Question presented: Whether a state offense constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), on the ground that the state offense is “described in” a specified federal statute, where the federal statute includes an interstate commerce element that the state offense lacks. Lower court opinion: Torres v. Holder, 764 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2014) Docket… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Marathon County v. Zachary W., 2014AP955, District 3, 12/2/14 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity Even if the circuit court erred it provided multiple definitions of the term “drug” when instructing the jury hearing a ch. 51 commitment case. The County sought to commit Zachary under ch. 51 on the ground that he was drug dependent, § 51.20(1)(a)1., based on… Read More

{ 0 comments }

Abramski v. United States, USSC No. 12-1493, 2014 WL 2676779 (June 16, 2014), affirming United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary) Resolving a split between federal circuit courts of appeal, the Supreme Court holds that the prohibition in 18 U. S. C. § 922(a)(6) against making false… Read More

{ 0 comments }