State v. Kimberly B., 2005 WI App 115 For Kimberly B.: Anthony G. Milisauskas Issue/Holding: ¶30 While Wis. Stat. § 939.45(5) recognizes the right of a parent to inflict corporal punishment to correct or discipline a child, that right of parental discipline has its limits. Kimberly seems to suggest that the statute prohibits only force that… Read more
10. Defenses
State v. Todd M. Jadowski, 2004 WI 68, on certification For Jadowski: Richard Hahn Issue: Whether due process supports an affirmative defense to sexual assault of a minor, § 948.02(2), based on the minor’s intentional misrepresentation of his or her age. Holding: ¶36. Upon reading Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2), we conclude that the statute is clear and… Read more
State v. Jeffrey A. Keeran, 2004 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/5/04 For Keeran: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: ¶5 … The coercion defense is limited to the “most severe form of inducement.” State v. Amundson, 69 Wis. 2d 554, 568, 230 N.W.2d 775 (1975). It requires a finding “under the objective-reasonable man test, with regard… Read more
State v. Robert C. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, reversing 2003 WI App 151, 266 Wis. 2d 274, 667 N.W.2d 867 For Deilke: Kelly J. McKnight Issue/Holding: ¶28 The primary purpose of the statute of limitations is to protect the accused from criminal consequences for remote past actions. State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10, ¶15, 259 Wis. 2d 523… Read more
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Claim preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew:: ¶26. We conclude that claim preclusion is not applicable for two independent reasons… Read more
State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130 Issue/Holding: ¶13. Barksdale next argues that, even if the circuit court properly allowed the warden to raise claim preclusion as a defense, the defense must fail because all of the elements for claim preclusion are not present. The burden of proving claim preclusion… Read more
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Issue preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew: ¶22. In the second action, the facts were different in that Miller already… Read more
State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04 For Miller: Robert T. Ruth Issue/Holding: Judicial estoppel didn’t prevent admissibility of evidence excluded as discovery sanction in prior, dismissed but then reissued action, where judge who dismissed prior action after imposing sanction contemplated that the excluded evidence would not be barred in a… Read more
