≡ Menu

10. Defenses

State Charles A. Dunlap, 2002 WI 19, reversing, 2000 WI App 251, 239 Wis. 2d 423, 620 N.W.2d 398 For Dunlap: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: “(W)hether a defendant who is charged with sexual assault should be allowed to present evidence of sexual behavior exhibited by the child complainant prior to the alleged assault, even… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9 For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan Issue/Holding: ¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Debra Ann Head, 2002 WI 99, reversing 2000 WI App 275, 240 Wis. 2d 162, 622 N.W.2d 9 For Head: John D. Hyland, Marcus J. Berghan Issue/Holding: ¶103. Based on the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 940.05(2), supported by the legislative history and articulated public policy behind the statute, we conclude that when imperfect self-defense is placed in… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. John F. Giminski, 2001 WI App 211, PFR filed 9/20/01 For Giminski: Edward J. Hunt Issue: Whether the defendant was entitled to invoke the privilege of defense of others, § 939.48(4), in using potentially deadly force against police officers who had pulled a gun on his daughter while executing a valid warrant. Holding… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Carl R. Kramer, 2001 WI 132, reversing and remanding 2000 WI App 271, 240 Wis. 2d 44, 622 N.W.2d 4 For Kramer: Stephen D. Willett Issue1: Whether Kramer established a prima facie case for selective prosecution. Holding: On a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show both discriminatory purpose and effect. The state concedes discriminatory purpose. As… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2001 WI App 251, PFR filed For Sorenson: T. Christopher Kelly Issue1: Whether issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) may be used “offensively” by the state in a Ch. 980 trial to bar a respondent from presenting evidence that s/he didn’t commit the offense which underlies the qualifying conviction. Holding: ¶28  Accordingly, we… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Defenses – Issue Preclusion

State v. Philip M. Canon, 2001 WI 11, 241 Wis. 2d 164, 622 N.W.2d 270, reversing State v. Canon, 230 Wis. 2d 512, 602 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1999) For Canon: Alan D. Eisenberg ¶1 The question presented in this case is whether the doctrine of issue preclusion bars the State from prosecuting a defendant under… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Ludwig Guzman, 2001 WI App 54, 241 Wis. 2d 310, 624 N.W.2d 717 For Guzman: Robert E. Haney Issue: Whether a verdict of acquittal in the defendant’s prior trial estopped the prosecution from retrying the ultimate fact resolved by that acquittal. Holding: ¶7 ‘Under the collateral estoppel doctrine an issue of ultimate fact… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS