State v. Jesse H. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/24/03
For Swinson: Pamela Pepper
Issue/Holding: Separate theft by fraud charges, § 943.20(1)(d), involving a scheme to defraud the same victim over a period of time, were not multiplicitous. Though identical in law, they weren’t identical in fact, because each charge involved a distinct false representation, as well as separate volitional acts. 31-32. Nor does legislative intent support telescoping the distinct acts into one charge. ¶¶34-47; State v. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77, 244 Wis. 2d 523, 628 N.W.2d 801, distinguished (largely because this “case concerns the theft of fifteen separate amounts of money taken in fifteen distinct episodes of theft,” ¶44, emphasis in original).