On Point

State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion
For Ferguson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where it was clear not only that Ferguson obstructed the police outsideher apartment but also that the jury so found, arguable omission of a “complete” instruction on whether the police acted with lawful authority in entering her apartment was harmless:

¶43      The jury instruction here was a correct statement of the law for police actions outside of Ferguson’s home. Therefore, although one may argue that the jury instruction was incomplete because it did not instruct on exigent circumstances, it did instruct relative to the actions of the police in arresting Ferguson once they were outside of her home where she continued her resistive course of conduct.¶44      It is true that a jury instruction that is incomplete, but is in all other respects a correct statement of the law, may be erroneous. See State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, ¶43, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762 (concluding that the jury instruction was erroneous because it failed to adequately define the element of “threat” for the offense of intentional threat to a judge); see also Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 579-80 (1986) (explaining that a jury instruction was erroneous because, while it did instruct the jury on the “malice” element of the charged offense, it erroneously shifted the burden of proof). However, here any incompleteness in the instruction did not fail to define lawful authority.

¶45      Based on the test set forth in Harvey, we conclude that if the failure to instruct the jury on exigent circumstances was error, it was harmless. UnderHarris, the police were acting with lawful authority in continuing their arrest of Ferguson as they escorted her down the apartment building stairway and placed her in the squad car. Ferguson did not discontinue her resistive conduct when police removed her from her home. As a result, we can conclude that if the jury had been instructed on exigent circumstances as well as the instruction given, it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted Ferguson of obstruction. Harvey, 254 Wis.  2d 442, ¶48.

The underlying rationale is spelled out a bit more clearly by the 3-Justice concurrence:

¶63      I conclude, however, that even if the entry and arrest for disorderly conduct were unlawful, the obstructing was sufficiently separate in time and location from any potentially unlawful conduct by the police. See State v. Annina, 2006 WI App 202, ¶11, 296 Wis. 2d 599, 723 N.W.2d 708 (citing with approval United States v. Bailey, 691 F.2d 1009, 1017-18 (11th Cir. 1982)) (“[T]he police may legally arrest a defendant for a new, distinct crime, even if the new crime is in response to police misconduct and causally connected thereto.”).

State v. Kelly R. Ferguson, 2009 WI 50, reversing unpublished opinion
For Ferguson: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶31      Because “lawful authority” is an element of obstruction under Wis. Stat. § 946.41(1), if the jury was not properly instructed on the meaning of “lawful authority,” given the facts presented to the jury, the circuit court erred.See Harvey, 254 Wis. 2d 442, ¶23 (“[J]ury instructions that have the effect of relieving the State of its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged are unconstitutional under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.”).

Joseph E. Koll, Jr v. Dept of Justice, 2009 WI App 74, PFR filed 4/29/09
For Koll: Alexander L. Ullenberg

Issue: Whether Koll’s conviction of so-called “non-domestic” disorderly conduct was for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(33)(A), so as to preclude him from obtaining a handgun.

Holding: The federal Gun Control Act bars gun possession to anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(33), and because the charging documents describe a “domestic” relationship between Koll and the victim the gun disqualification is established.

A disqualifying misdemeanor conviction has two separate components, 1) violence in 2) a “domestic” relationship. Koll indisputably lived with his DC victim; his argument was simply that the Gun Control Act requires “convictions for misdemeanor crimes that include, as an element, a domestic relationship,” ¶7. The court easily dispatched that argument: “The U.S. Supreme Court has unambiguously spoken, and the facts can lead to but one conclusion. Because Koll had a domestic relationship with the victim of his misdemeanor crime of disorderly conduct, he may not possess a gun,” ¶12. In light of the referenced case, U.S. v. Hayes, 555 U.S. __, No. 07-608 (“Congress defined ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ to include an offense ‘committed by’ a person who had a specified domestic relationship with the victim, whether or not the misdemeanor statute itself designates the domestic relationship as an element of the crime”), this conclusion seems beyond challenge. Difficult questions—ignored by the court—remain, however.Given that “domestic” relationship isn’t a formal element, how exactly is it to be established? (The definition is recited in ¶8 of the opinion and more or less comes down to spousal, parental, or guardianship “relationship between aggressor and victim.” You’ll find more in Hayes, and here, from the BATF website.) Koll did not, apparently, challenge the fact that he “cohabited” with the victim, so the matter of proving the connection didn’t have to be sharpened. The concurrence, though, elaborates a bit: “the DOJ properly went behind the judgment of conviction and based its decision to deny Koll a permit on the contents of the complaint and police report,”¶21. The concurrence cites only an ATF document for the proposition you can look at police reports to ascertain a domestic relationship, but that document doesn’t mention police reports at all. The majority, by contrast, indicates only that the domestic relationship was established by the complaint, e.g., ¶¶4, 7. Despite the concurrence, then, the opinion is not authority for going beyond the complaint. Indeed, a federal Armed Career Criminal Act case, Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), specifically holds that in determining the nature of qualifying priors, extrajudicial documents such as police reports are very much off-limits. The inquiry instead “is generally limited to examining the statutory definition, charging document, written plea agreement, transcript of plea colloquy, and any explicit factual finding by the trial judge to which the defendant assented.” (Not controlling, but arguably applicable to this context.) Thus, there’s a decent argument we’re limited to judicial documents in establishing a “domestic” relationship. But if Koll means nothing else, it means that labeling the complaint “non-domestic” does no good at all. It’s a nullity, as the concurrence accurately points out.

So much for the “domestic” relationship requirement. Recall the second requirement, “violence,” which Koll does not appear to have challenged. Perhaps he should have. The complaint, though, plainly “indicated that Koll had slapped the hand and twisted the arm of his live-in girlfriend, and that when she tried to leave, Koll broke the side mirror off of the vehicle”: why isn’t that conduct “violent”? Well, that isn’t necessarily the right question, which is, rather, whether the predicate offense necessarily involves violent conduct; whether, that is, and very much unlike the domestic relationship inquiry, force must be a formal element. Shepard (again: not controlling but arguably applicable) holds that the offense must be “categorically” violent. The same point is made more recently by Chambers v. U.S., No. 06-11206 (“This categorical approach requires courts to choose the right category. And sometimes the choice is not obvious. The nature of the behavior that likely underlies a statutory phrase matters in this respect.”). DC, of course, is sort of an omnibus provision (“or otherwise disorderly conduct”), but only one elemental alternative unequivocally relates to “violent” conduct. The Koll opinion isn’t clear, indeed is totally silent, about whether “violent” conduct was formally alleged against Koll. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. Does “violent” conduct have to be specifically alleged, or is the court saying that DC is necessarily a crime of violence? Well, that question appears to be answered by the Instruction Committee, JI 1900: “Conduct is disorderly although it may not be violent ….” Perhaps, then, Koll’s complaint specifically alleged “violent” conduct. But even if it didn’t, the fact that Koll didn’t raise the argument means that the opinion didn’t precedentially resolve it.

Assuming you’ve read this far, why on earth should you care about any of this? For one thing, the gun ban is a collateral (as opposed to direct) consequence of a conviction, e.g., State v. Frank J. Kosina, 226 Wis.2d 482, 595 N.W.2d 464 (Ct. App. 1999), so that a) the burden of informing the defendant of the disqualifying effect falls on counsel (rather than the court should the defendant enter a guilty plea); b) the defendant’s belated discovery of this information after conviction will not be a ground to withdraw a guilty plea; c) maybe (it remains to be seen) in some instances some sort of insulation may follow by amending the complaint’s factual allegations and/or stipulating to a different set of facts, or even amending the specific formal element alleged. Perhaps attention ought to be given, as part of any plea-bargaining, to amending the formally charged alternative to something other than “violent” conduct. Thought should be given, as well, to making the contemporaneous record clear that the guilty plea is premised on avoidance of the gun ban—see, in this regard, the self-same Koll’s companion case, State v. Koll, 08-AP1403, 4/8/09) (Koll allowed to withdraw plea to the very DC conviction at issue, on the theory he “was actively misinformed as to a collateral consequence of his plea agreement,” namely the gun ban). Undoubtedly, other implications will occur to you, but the larger point seems pretty clear: this is going to be a recurrent problem.

One last observation. The court of appeals mentions, literally in passing (¶6), that it “must determine whether Koll’s conviction for disorderly conduct prohibits him, under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A), from exercising his constitutional right to bear arms.” Also, ¶12 (“The question before us is whether Koll’s conviction for disorderly conduct prohibits him, under the Gun Control Act, from exercising his Second Amendment right to bear arms.” We’ll put aside for now whether the 2^nd A applies—very much up in the air—rather than Art. I, § 25 which clearly does apply.) These glancing references mark the only times the constitutional right is mentioned. It’s therefore probably fair to assume that while the court may deem the right’s very existence to be non-controversial, the court equally thinks the right completely irrelevant to the analysis. Nothing, then, like a constitutional right observed only with such apparent disdain. Does a fundamental right trigger a requirement that its impairment be accomplished as reasonably narrowly as possible? Someone will have to make the argument before we find out.

State v. Christopher F. Becker, 2009 WI App 59, PFR filed 5/8/09
For Becker: Jeremy C. Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Waived objection to jury instruction “which failed to tie a particular act of sexual contact to a particular count” on a 2-count information of sexual assault of a child, not prejudicial (State v. Marcum, 166 Wis. 2d 908, 480 N.W.2d 545 (Ct. App. 1992), distinguished):

¶22   … As noted earlier, the Marcum jury returned a combination of verdicts, two acquittals and one guilty, making it impossible to know if all twelve jurors agreed that Marcum committed the same act in the count where there was a guilty verdict. See id. at 920. …

¶23   Unlike the defendant in Marcum, Becker was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to make a timely objection to the jury instructions, and thus does not prevail on this claim. See id. at 924. Unlike the Marcum jury, the jury here did not return a combination of acquittal and guilty verdicts; rather, it convicted Becker on both counts in question, returning two verdicts of guilty. See id. at 920. This eliminates the risk that the jury was not unanimous and, thus, does not give rise to prejudice by offending the unanimous jury requirement. The unanimity of the jury is accurate even if the jurors, as a result of the trial court’s answer to their question, did not all agree on which act should be assigned to which count.

¶24   Moreover, the jury was explicitly told that “[e]ach Count charges a separate crime and you must consider each one separately.” We agree with the State that no reasonable juror could hear that instruction and conclude that he or she could predicate both guilty verdicts on the same act. Thus, when all the jurors agreed that Becker was guilty of both counts, they unanimously agreed beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed both of the acts of sexual assault charged: the act of touching the victim’s vaginal area and the act of allowing or causing the victim to touch his penis. How each individual juror assigned the two acts between the two counts made no difference; for however each juror assigned them, each juror could not find Becker guilty of both counts without concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Becker engaged in both acts charged.

One count involved touching the victim’s vagina, the other involved touching the defendant’s penis—the court stresses absence of “any suggestion that Becker touched the victim’s vaginal area two times,” ¶26, in other words, absence of any possibility the jury would have confused the necessary showing. (“Given the jury’s guilty verdicts on both counts, it is inconsequential as to which type of touching was tied to which count by the individual jurors because the jurors unanimously agreed that Becker was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of both a sexual assault consisting of his touching the victim’s vaginal area and a sexual assault consisting of him allowing or causing the victim to touch his penis,” ¶27.)The court does, though, recognize the potential for mischief and serves up some stern advice; cold comfort for Becker no doubt, but worth the next litigant’s close attention:

¶10   Before we proceed to our analysis, we make the following edifying clarifications. This entire issue could have been avoided if the State had not put it in play with its sloppy draftsmanship. In the complaint and information, the district attorney did not tie the specific act of Becker touching the victim’s vaginal area to a specific count; nor did he tie the specific act of Becker allowing or causing the victim to touch his penis to a separate, specific count. Where a defendant, such as Becker, is charged with multiple acts violating a criminal statute, the district attorney should tie a specific act to each count in the case. The complaint and/or information should then specify in each count the specific act to which it applies. This should also be done if there are multiple acts occurring at different times or on different days. If the district attorney fails to charge with particularity, defense counsel should bring a motion to make the complaint and/or information more definite and certain. Finally, the trial court is not a lemming and should not overlook sloppy charging by the State. Rather, regardless of the State’s lack of care, the trial court should take great care to not give generic, nonspecific instructions or verdict forms to the jury. Having conveyed, with particularity, how to avoid this problem in the future, we continue with our analysis.

State v. James F. Lala, 2009 WI App 137, PFR filed 9/1/09
For Lala: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11      Sexually explicit conduct as defined in Wis. Stat. § 948.01(7)(e) includes actual or simulated “lewd exhibition of intimate parts.” The term “lewd,” however, is not statutorily defined, nor has a single definition been established by cases interpreting similar child pornography laws. See State v. Petrone, 161 Wis. 2d 530, 561, 468 N.W.2d 676 (1991). …¶12      … Lala admits that in each of the photos, the child is positioned so that her “crotch is visible,” but maintains that because the child appears to be wearing nylons or “nylon underwear,” as evidenced by a nylon seam, the intimate parts of the child are not unclothed and therefore the pictures are not lewd. Lala’s arguments are not persuasive.

¶13      When the Petrone court established guidelines for defining “lewd” or “sexually explicit,” it did not require that a child be “unclothed” in order for a picture to be lewd. Instead the supreme court stated that visible display of the child’s pubic area and posing the child as a sex object with an unnatural or unusual focus on the child’s genitalia should inform the common sense determination by the trier of fact regarding the pornographic nature of the image. See Petrone, 161 Wis. 2d at 561. It follows that where a child’s pubic area is visibly displayed, as is it is here, the lack of a full opaque covering is a proper consideration that should inform the common sense determination by the trier of fact.

…

¶17      In sum, despite the arguable presence of nylons which provided less than a full opaque covering and left the child’s intimate parts visibly displayed, the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that the photographs depicted a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. ^[7]

The court leaves open the issue of “whether the presence of a full opaque covering would be sufficient to avoid a violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.12(1m),” ¶17 n. 7. Evidence of scienter held sufficiently proven, ¶18.

State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen

Issue/Holding:

¶25      Kramer argues that the “totally divorced” language from Cady means that the officer must have ruled out any possibility of criminal activity before the community caretaker function is bona fide. The State, on the other hand, acknowledges that while the subjective intent of the officer may be relevant, it is not dispositive, constituting merely one factor among many to be considered in the totality of the circumstances. We conclude that the State’s view better comports with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11.

The test, the court clarifies, is not always and necessarily wholly objective:

¶27      … That is, when an officer’s Fourth Amendment search and seizure conduct is supported by an objectively ascertainable basis for probable cause or reasonable suspicion, the police conduct meets the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness, thereby causing subjective motivations to be of little concern. However, when a search or seizure is not supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion and it is contended that the reasonableness of police conduct stands on other footing, an officer’s subjective motivation is a factor that may warrant consideration. See 2 Wayne R. Lafave et al., Criminal Procedure § 3.1(d) (3d ed. 2007) (noting that the pretextual, subjective motivations of police officers may be considered when the police conduct takes place in the absence of probable cause) (citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 811); cf 1 Wayne R. Lafave et al., Criminal Procedure § 1.4(f) (3d ed. 2007) (generally criticizing the Whren decision).

…

¶30      When evaluating whether a community caretaker function is bona fide, we examine the totality of the circumstances as they existed at the time of the police conduct.Cady, 413 U.S. at 440; Kelsey C.R., 243 Wis.  2d 422, ¶37. In so doing, we conclude that the “totally divorced” language from Cady does not mean that if the police officer has any subjective law enforcement concerns, he cannot be engaging in a valid community caretaker function. Rather, we conclude that in a community caretaker context, when under the totality of the circumstances an objectively reasonable basis for the community caretaker function is shown, that determination is not negated by the officer’s subjective law enforcement concerns.

…

¶36      Therefore, we conclude that a court may consider an officer’s subjective intent in evaluating whether the officer was acting as a bona fide community caretaker; however, if the court concludes that the officer has articulated an objectively reasonable basis under the totality of the circumstances for the community caretaker function, he has met the standard of acting as a bona fide community caretaker, whose community caretaker function is totally divorced from law enforcement functions. Furthermore, applying an objective standard, while considering subjective concerns, is consistent with our past jurisprudence in determining the reasonableness of an officer’s actions in regard to a protective frisk for weapons:

The officer’s [subjective] fear or belief . . . is but one factor in the totality of the circumstances that a court may consider in determining whether an [officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable].

State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, ¶39, 269 Wis.  2d 1, 675 N.W.2d 449. ^[9] We now consider whether Wagner conducted a bona fide community caretaker function in this case.

State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen

Issue/Holding: The 3-factor test for determining validity of community caretaker intervention, as articulated by State v. Anderson, 142 Wis.  2d 162, 167, 417 N.W.2d 411 (Ct. App. 1987), and the lead opinion of State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54, is adopted:

¶21      Subsequently, the court of appeals set out a three-step test for evaluating claims of police community caretaker functions in Anderson I, which we conclude provides a satisfactory analysis. Anderson I explained this test:

[W]hen a community caretaker function is asserted as justification for the seizure of a person, the trial court must determine: (1) that a seizure within the meaning of the fourth amendment has occurred; (2) if so, whether the police conduct was bona fide community caretaker activity; and (3) if so, whether the public need and interest outweigh the intrusion upon the privacy of the individual. ^[8]

Anderson I, 142 Wis.  2d at 169. This three-step test was applied in the lead opinion inKelsey C.R., 243 Wis.  2d 422, ¶35, and it has been applied in subsequent court of appeals opinions. See, e.g., Ziedonis, 287 Wis.  2d 831, ¶14; State v. Paterson, 220 Wis.  2d 526, 533-34, 583 N.W.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1998).

Footnote 8 is explicit: “… we choose to expressly adopt the lead opinion in Kelsey C.R. and the three-step test Kelsey C.R. employed.”