Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re the Medical Incapacity of Jurgensengreen2 sentences2020See State v. Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d 423, 429-30 , 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981) (if the defense is an attack on an element of the crime, “the state bears the burden of proving this element beyond a reasonable doubt” and when a negative defense is asserted, “the burden of persuasion cannot be placed upon the defendant without violating his right to due process”); State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 640 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (if a defendant successfully raises a negative defense, “the burden is upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s evidence did not negate an element ne 1999State v. Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d 423, 430 , 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981); see also State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 640 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) ("a defendant's due process rights are not violated when a burden of production, as opposed to a burden of persuasion, is placed upon a defendant to start matters off by putting in some evidence of the negative defense." (citations omitted)(emphasis in the original)). | 2 | 7 |
State v. Schulzgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d 423, 429-30 , 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981) (if the defense is an attack on an element of the crime, “the state bears the burden of proving this element beyond a reasonable doubt” and when a negative defense is asserted, “the burden of persuasion cannot be placed upon the defendant without violating his right to due process”); State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 640 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (if a defendant successfully raises a negative defense, “the burden is upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s evidence did not negate an element ne 2013See Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d at 429 --30 (if defense is attack on element of crime, "the [S]tate bears the burden of proving this element beyond a reasonable doubt" and when a negative defense is asserted, "the burden of persuasion cannot be placed upon the defendant without violating his right to due process"); see also State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 640 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (If a defendant successfully raises a negative defense, "the burden is upon the [S]tate to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's evidence did not negate an element necessary to convict."). ¶ 17. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Pettitgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d 423, 429-30 , 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981) (if the defense is an attack on an element of the crime, “the state bears the burden of proving this element beyond a reasonable doubt” and when a negative defense is asserted, “the burden of persuasion cannot be placed upon the defendant without violating his right to due process”); State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 640 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (if a defendant successfully raises a negative defense, “the burden is upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s evidence did not negate an element ne 2020See State v. Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d 423, 429-30 , 307 N.W.2d 151 (1981) (if the defense is an attack on an element of the crime, “the state bears the burden of proving this element beyond a reasonable doubt” and when a negative defense is asserted, “the burden of persuasion cannot be placed upon the defendant without violating his right to due process”); State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 640 , 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (if a defendant successfully raises a negative defense, “the burden is upon the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s evidence did not negate an element ne | 2 | 3 |
State v. DelRealgreen2 sentences2004This was relevant, exculpatory evidence because the negative test result would have some weight and its tendency could have supplied a favorable inference of DelReal's innocence to the jury. *111 Id. at 571 (emphasis added). 2004Id. at 571 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences1984Entrapment does not negate a fact that the state must prove in order to sustain a conviction, but nonetheless constitutes a defense to “deter reprehensible police conduct.” State v. Brown, 107 Wis. 2d 44, 55 , 318 N.W.2d 370, 376 (1982). 1984Entrapment does not negate a fact that the state must prove in order to sustain a conviction, but nonetheless constitutes a defense to “deter reprehensible police conduct.” State v. Brown, 107 Wis. 2d 44, 55 , 318 N.W.2d 370, 376 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hochmangreen2 sentences1984Entrapment is an affirmative defense, State v. Hochman, 2 Wis. 2d 410, 418 , 86 N.W.2d 446, 450-51 (1957), not a negative defense. 1984Entrapment is an affirmative defense, State v. Hochman, 2 Wis. 2d 410, 418 , 86 N.W.2d 446, 450-51 (1957), not a negative defense. | 1 | 1 |
Sandstrom v. Montanagreen1 sentence1984See Sandstrom v. Montana,, 442 U.S. 510 (1979); Schulz, 102 Wis. 2d at 429-30 , 307 N.W.2d at 156 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Watkins
green
2 sentences2020By contrast, “[a]n ‘affirmative defense’ is ... ‘a defendant’s assertion raising new facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff’s or prosecution’s claim even if all allegations in the complaint are true.” State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, ¶39 , 255 Wis. 2d 265 , 647 N.W.2d 244 (citation and emphasis omitted). 2013A negative defense serves to negate the elements of a crime that the State must prove. 6 See Watkins, 255 Wis. 2d 265, ¶ 40 . | 2 | 2013–2020 |
State v. Joseph T. Langlois
green
2 sentences2023The court stated in Langlois, “Because self-defense is a negative defense, the State disproves self- defense beyond a reasonable doubt if it proves the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically criminal negligence.” See id., 382 Wis. 2d 414, ¶45 . 2023The court stated in Langlois, “Because self-defense is a negative defense, the State disproves self- defense beyond a reasonable doubt if it proves the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically criminal negligence.” See id., 382 Wis. 2d 414, ¶45 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Michael Meeks v. Daniel R. McBride and Attorney General of the State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2019As the Meeks court also explained, "we do not consider exculpatory evidence merely because it could have supported a different result from that reached by the [committee]." Id. ¶13 Brown argues that he was denied his due process right to an impartial hearing officer. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Glass
green
1 sentence2005On appeal the court recognized that the negative test results were critically important to Glass's theory of defense and that "[a] `negative' test result is far different from an `inconclusive' one." Id. ¶ 17 Here the parties' stipulation in lieu of the testimony of the crime lab analyst was that the "lab found no evidence either confirming or negating sexual conduct by either the defendant or the complaining witness or that the defendant had been with the complaining witness." Further, the crime lab report was admitted into evidence and sent to the jury room. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.