Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Baron

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 2009No. 2007AP1289-CRPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Concurrence

*89ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.

¶ 59. {concurring). I agree with the majority that the statute is constitutional as applied. Majority op., ¶ 57.1 write separately, however, because I disagree with the majority that the statute regulates speech as well as conduct. Rather, I believe that the court of appeals got it right — this statute as applied regulates only conduct. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.

¶ 60. The court of appeals noted that "because the statute at issue implicates First Amendment rights, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statute is constitutional."…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. State v. BaronWisconsin Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. RobinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 2002
  4. State v. BaronCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2008

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. BaronWisconsin Supreme Court · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API