State v. Hammer, No. 96-3084-CR
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | WEDEMEYER |
| Citation | 216 Wis.2d 214,576 N.W.2d 285 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-3084-CR |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1997 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gordon HAMMER, Defendant-Appellant. d |
Page 285
v.
Gordon HAMMER, Defendant-Appellant. d
Opinion Released Dec. 23, 1997.
Opinion Filed Dec. 23, 1997.
[216 Wis.2d 217] On behalf of the defendant-appellant, the cause was submitted on the brief of Charles W. Jones of Milwaukee.
On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of James E. Doyle, Attorney General and David J. Becker, Assistant Attorney General.
Before WEDEMEYER, P.J., and FINE and CURLEY, JJ.
WEDEMEYER, Presiding Judge.
Gordon Hammer appeals from a judgment entered after the jury convicted him of one count of aggravated burglary, as party to a crime, five counts of first-degree sexual assault, and one count of armed robbery, as party to a crime, contrary to §§ 943.10(2)(d), 939.05, 939.63, 940.225(1)(c), and 943.32(2), STATS. Hammer claims the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in instructing the jury regarding the aggravated burglary. Because the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it instructed the jury, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On April 26 and 27, 1995, three women and a man were partying at 2515-B South Seventh Street. Three men broke into this residence,
Page 286
and beat the man and sexually assaulted the women. Hammer was charged with committing these crimes. A trial to a jury took place in March 1996. The trial court instructed the jury on the intent element of aggravated burglary as follows:The fourth element requires that the defendant entered the building with the intent to commit a felony. That is, that the defendant intended to commit a felony at the time he entered the building. A [216 Wis.2d 218] first degree sexual assault is a felony, an armed robbery is a felony, a substantial battery causing substantial bodily harm to another without consent and with intent to cause bodily harm or substantial bodily harm is a felony. Substantial bodily harm includes bodily injury that causes a laceration requiring stitches.
.
If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally entered a building, that the entry of the building by the defendant was without the consent of the person in lawful possession, that the defendant knew that he did not have such consent and that the defendant entered the building with the intent to commit a felony, you should find the defendant guilty.
The trial court declined Hammer's request to instruct the jury that the verdict had to be unanimous as to the felony that Hammer intended to commit when he entered the victims' dwelling. Hammer was convicted. Judgment was entered. Hammer now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
Hammer contends that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in charging the jury because it failed to require the jury to unanimously agree on one of the alternative felonies that Hammer intended to commit when he entered the victims' dwelling. 1 We reject his contention.
[216 Wis.2d 219] A trial court has wide discretion in deciding what instructions to give to a jury. See State v. Lenarchick, 74 Wis.2d 425, 455, 247 N.W.2d 80, 96 (1976). If the instructions of the court adequately cover the law applicable to the facts, this court will not reverse the conviction. See id.
A defendant is entitled to unanimity with respect to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. See Holland v. State, 91 Wis.2d 134, 143, 280 N.W.2d 288, 292-93 (1979). Unanimity, however, is not required "with respect to the alternative means or ways in which the crime can be committed." Id. The crime at issue here states: "Whoever intentionally enters any of the following places without the consent of the person in lawful possession and with intent to steal or commit a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gardner, No. 2007-0375.
...proscribe a single crime that may be carried out in more than one manner or method. As the court explained in State v. Hammer (1997), 216 Wis.2d 214, 220, 576 N.W.2d 285, "[t]he language of the [burglary] statute indicates that the crime here is one single offense with multiple modes of com......
-
The State Of Ohio v. Fry, No. 2006-1502.
...and distinct offenses.’ ” See State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-2787, 889 N.E.2d 995, ¶ 63, quoting State v. Hammer (1997), 216 Wis.2d 214, 220, 576 N.W.2d 285. Moreover, the two purposes are “conceptually similar” for unanimity purposes. Id. at ¶ 67. Thus, the precise nature ......
-
State v. Hendricks, No. 2015AP2429-CR
...Steele's claim that the felony had to be explained10 because it is an essential element, the court of appeals relied on State v. Hammer, 216 Wis. 2d 214, 576 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App. 1997). Hammer was a jury unanimity case, which analyzed the statutory language of Wis. Stat. § 943.10, the burgl......
-
United States v. Franklin, No. 2018AP1346-CQ
...appropriateness of multiple punishments for the conduct. Derango, 236 Wis. 2d 721, ¶¶ 14-15, 613 N.W.2d 833 ; see also State v. Hammer, 216 Wis. 2d 214, 220, 576 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App. 1997) ; Manson v. State, 101 Wis. 2d 413, 422, 304 N.W.2d 729 (1981). The objective of this inquiry is to de......
-
State v. Gardner, No. 2007-0375.
...proscribe a single crime that may be carried out in more than one manner or method. As the court explained in State v. Hammer (1997), 216 Wis.2d 214, 220, 576 N.W.2d 285, "[t]he language of the [burglary] statute indicates that the crime here is one single offense with multiple modes of com......
-
The State Of Ohio v. Fry, No. 2006-1502.
...and distinct offenses.’ ” See State v. Gardner, 118 Ohio St.3d 420, 2008-Ohio-2787, 889 N.E.2d 995, ¶ 63, quoting State v. Hammer (1997), 216 Wis.2d 214, 220, 576 N.W.2d 285. Moreover, the two purposes are “conceptually similar” for unanimity purposes. Id. at ¶ 67. Thus, the precise nature ......
-
State v. Hendricks, No. 2015AP2429-CR
...Steele's claim that the felony had to be explained10 because it is an essential element, the court of appeals relied on State v. Hammer, 216 Wis. 2d 214, 576 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App. 1997). Hammer was a jury unanimity case, which analyzed the statutory language of Wis. Stat. § 943.10, the burgl......
-
United States v. Franklin, No. 2018AP1346-CQ
...appropriateness of multiple punishments for the conduct. Derango, 236 Wis. 2d 721, ¶¶ 14-15, 613 N.W.2d 833 ; see also State v. Hammer, 216 Wis. 2d 214, 220, 576 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App. 1997) ; Manson v. State, 101 Wis. 2d 413, 422, 304 N.W.2d 729 (1981). The objective of this inquiry is to de......