I. Ch. 947: Against public peace

State v. Bradley S. Johnson, Outagamie Co. Circ. Ct. No. 12CM495 circuit court decision; case activity Panhandling prosecution under § 947.02(4) is dismissed with prejudice because the vagrancy statute is unconstitutional under first amendment analysis: panhandling (“begging”) is a form of protected speech and its criminalization under § 947.02(4) is fatally vague and overbroad. State v. Starks, 51 Wis.2d 256… Read more

State v. Tyler H., 2012AP914, District 3, 11/6/12,  court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity Evidence held sufficient to support delinquency adjudication, where juvenile called mother “a fucking whore” after she struck him during a family “squabble” in their home. ¶9        We conclude Tyler’s conduct was of the type that tends to cause… Read more

State v. James R. Dobie, 2011AP399-CR, District 3, 8/9/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Dobie: Curt Fisher; case activity Evidence held sufficient to sustain DC guilty verdict, based on Dobie biting his girlfriend’s (Ronek) arm. Although Ronek testified and denied that Dobie bit her, observations of officers responding to a disturbance call supplied… Read more

State v. William J. Zarda, 2011AP386-CR, District 3, 5/17/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Zarda: Ricky Cveykus; case activity Under settled authority, the disorderly conduct statute, § 947.01, is neither overbroad (¶5, citing State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725); nor vague (¶6, citing State v. Zwicker, 41… Read more

State v. Robert Lyle Lawver, Jr., 2010AP382-CR, District 4, 5/5/11 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lawver: Cole Daniel Ruby; case activity Conviction for disorderly conduct upheld on following facts: ¶9        The pertinent facts include the following.  Lawver was walking at night down an unlit highway, traveling with traffic, so that he… Read more

State v. Kurt Daniel Schmidt, 2010AP1104-CR, District 3, 11/16/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Schmidt: Andrew John Laufers; Schmidt BiC; State Resp.; Reply Unlawful Use of Phone – Sufficiency of Evidence Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for violating § 947.012(1)(c). The second of two calls anonymously made by Schmidt in a matter of minutes… Read more

State v. Salvador Cruz, 2010AP911-CR, District 2, 10/13/10 court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Cruz: Matthew S. Pinix; BiC; Resp.; Reply Evidence of the effect of the defendant’s (alleged disorderly) conduct was relevant, without a showing of “proximity” to that conduct: ¶13      A.S. instructs that “[i]n addition to considering the potential effects of a defendant’s… Read more