State v. Charles E. Dukes, 2007 WI App 175 For Dukes: Robert N. Meyeroff Issue/Holding: ¶22 Dukes contends that this evidence is insufficient because there was “no physical evidence linking [him] to the drug house and the drugs in the drug house,” because neither his fingerprints nor DNA were on any of the items recovered… Read more
L. Ch. 961: Controlled Subst.
State v. Wayne Charles Slagle, 2007 WI App 117 For Slagle: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶2 … Because the State charged Slagle with keeping or maintaining a “vehicle” used for “keeping” cocaine, the State needed to prove the following three elements: 1. Slagle kept or maintained a vehicle. 2. Slagle’s vehicle was… Read more
State v. Wayne Charles Slagle, 2007 WI App 117 For Slagle: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶7 The interpretation of the statutory term “keeping” as “warehousing or storage for ultimate manufacture or delivery” comes from State v. Brooks, 124 Wis. 2d 349, 354-55, 369 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1985). Neither party challenges this interpretation… Read more
State v. Alvin M. Moore, 2006 WI App 61, PFR filed 3/21/06 For Moore: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether an effort at dissuading a child witness which was directed at the child’s mother satisfies the elements of attempted intimidation of a witness, § 940.42. Holding: ¶10 To prove attempted intimidation of Tamika… Read more
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: ¶45 We further reject Stank’s argument that insufficient evidence existed to support the “intent to deliver” element of count two. According to Peasley v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 224, 229, 231-32, 265 N.W.2d 506 (1978), the finder of fact may consider… Read more
State v. Rickey Eugene Pinkard, 2005 WI App 226 For Pinkard: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: Someone holding drugs for another person and planning to return the drugs to that person intends to deliver within the meaning of § 961.41(1m). State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496, 525 N.W.2d 264 (1995) (conspiracy to deliver not supported where only… Read more
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: Proof of the controlled substance is sufficient where a “presumptive” test is followed by a “confirmatory” one (State v. Dye, 215 Wis. 2d 281, 572 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1997), followed), with the PDR being used to establish the presumption: ¶42 Here, the… Read more
Stephen Dye v. Frank, 355 F.3d 1102 (7th Cir 2004) For Dye: Christopher M. Bailey Issue/Holding: To determine whether a civil penalty is so punitive that it is should be characterized as criminal punishment, we must consider the factors listed by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963), and reaffirmed in Hudson… Read more
