10. Sec. 939.32

State v. Thomas W. Grimm, 2002 WI App 242 For Grimm: Daniel W. Hildebrand Issue/Holding: State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65, 253 Wis. 2d 298, 646 N.W.2d 287, and State v. Koenck, 2001 WI App 93, 242 Wis. 2d 693, 626 N.W.2d 359, which permit enticement charges where a fictitious online “victim” is thought by the defendant to… Read more

State v. Thomas W. Grimm, 2002 WI App 242 For Grimm: Daniel W. Hildebrand Issue/Holding: The rationale of State v. Robins, 2002 WI 65, 253 Wis. 2d 298, 646 N.W.2d 287, and State v. Koenck, 2001 WI App 93, 242 Wis. 2d 693, 626 N.W.2d 359, which permit enticement charges where a fictitious online “victim” is thought by the… Read more

State v. Melvin L. Moffett and Jerrell I. Denson, 2000 WI 130, 239 Wis. 2d 629, 619 N.W.2d 918, affirming State v. Moffett/Denson, 2000 WI App 67, 233 Wis. 2d 628, 608 N.W.2d 733 For Moffett: Patrick J. Stangl; for Denson: Joseph L. Sommers Issue: ¶2 The parties present the following question to this court: May the State… Read more

State v. Gabriel DeRango, 229 Wis.2d 1, 599 N.W.2d 27 (Ct. App. 1999), affirmed on other grounds, State v. Derango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 83 For DeRango: Robert G. LeBell Holding: The evidence was sufficient, largely because the complainant’s refusal to go along with DeRango’s scheme constituted intervention of another person, so as… Read more

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/Holding1: In Hamiel v. State, 92 Wis.2d 656, 666, 285 N.W.2d 639, 646 (1979), the supreme court outlined the two requirements for proof of an attempted crime: [I]t must … be shown that… Read more