State v. Chvala

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State v. Chvala

2005 WI 30, 693 N.W.2d 747, 279 Wis. 2d 216, 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 141

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 23, 2005

Docket03-0442-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2005 WI 30 (State v. Chvala) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Chvala, 2005 WI 30, 693 N.W.2d 747, 279 Wis. 2d 216, 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 141 (Wis. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. The court is unanimous in determining that the charges against the petitioner do not violate the doctrine of separation of powers, nor do such charges involve a violation of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution (Art. IV § 16). Further, the court is unanimous in determining that Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) (2001-02), the statute that the petitioner has been charged with violating, does not here circumscribe legitimate legislative activity and, therefore, is not overbroad. The court is also unanimous in determining that the issues presented are justiciable, in that the political question doctrine does not interfere with the court deciding these matters.

¶ 2. The court is also unanimous in holding that the petitioner has standing to raise the issues related to Due Process, Fair Notice, and the vagueness of Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) as applied, but the court is equally divided as to whether the petitioner has met the burden of establishing that the charges here violate those principles. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would affirm the court of appeals on those issues, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks and Justice Patience D. Roggensack would reverse on those issues.

¶ 3. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

*219 ¶ 4. Justices JON E WILCOX, DAVID T. PROSSER, JR., and LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1. The court is unanimous in determining that the charges against the petitioner do not violate the doctrine of separation of powers, nor do such charges involve a violation of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Wisconsin Constitution (Art. IV § 16). Further, the court is unanimous in determining that Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) (2001-02), the statute that the petitioner has been charged with violating, does not here circumscribe legitimate legislative activity and, therefore, is not overbroad. The court is also unanimous in determining that the issues presented are justiciable, in that the political question doctrine does not interfere with the court deciding these matters.

¶ 2. The court is also unanimous in holding that the petitioner has standing to raise the issues related to Due Process, Fair Notice, and the vagueness of Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) as applied, but the court is equally divided as to whether the petitioner has met the burden of establishing that the charges here violate those principles. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would affirm the court of appeals on those issues, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks and Justice Patience D. Roggensack would reverse on those issues.

¶ 3. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

By the Court. — The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.

*219 ¶ 4. Justices JON E WILCOX, DAVID T. PROSSER, JR., and LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2005 WI 30, 693 N.W.2d 747, 279 Wis. 2d 216, 2005 Wisc. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chvala-wis-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack