Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Brent T. Novy

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 2013No. 2011AP000409-CRPublished

1ConcurrenceShirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.

¶ 55. (concurring). I write separately for two reasons. First, I disagree with the majority opinion's interpretation and application of Wis. Stat. § 971.23 to the undisputed facts in the present case. Second, I disagree with the majority opinion's approach to the second issue, namely the allegedly sleeping juror.

I

¶ 56. The majority opinion does not address the difficult issue of law facing the court, namely interpreting and applying the text of Wis. Stat. § 971.23 to the undisputed facts of the case. The majority opinion carefully reprints the text of the statute but then ignores the words…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. United States v. Edwin Thomas BarrettCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
  2. State v. ArmstrongWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
  3. State v. StuartWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Howard v. Beldenville Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  5. State v. MartinWisconsin Supreme Court · 2012

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API