proposed jury instruction in Wisconsin

12 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Williamsgreen ca10 · 2004 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute"s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an un 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u	2	2
United States v. Zanghigreen ca1 · 1999 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute"s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an un 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u	2	2
State v. Azuregreen mont · 2008 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute"s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an un 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u	2	2
State v. Rogersgreen nd · 2007 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute"s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an un 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u	2	2
Weeks v. Angelonegreen scotus · 2000 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute"s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an un 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u	2	2
State v. Willisgreen wash · 2005 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute"s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an un 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u	2	2
State v. Headgreen wis · 2002 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025STAT. § 939.48(1); Head, 255 Wis. 2d 194, ¶¶70, 84-91 . ¶82 We conclude that defense counsel did not perform deficiently by failing to object to the proposed jury instruction.23 McCandless first contends that the NGI component of the jury instruction “imported an irrelevant theory” because “this was not an NGI case.” That is precisely what the jury was informed in the first part of the instruction.	1	1
State v. Davidsongreen wis · 1969 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021State v. Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, ¶46 , 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999); see also State v. Davidson, 44 Wis. 2d 177, 191-92 , 170 N.W.2d 755 (1969). 2021State v. Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, ¶46 , 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999); see also State v. Davidson, 44 Wis. 2d 177, 191-92 , 170 N.W.2d 755 (1969).	1	1
City of Waukesha v. Godfreygreen wis · 1969 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014And, as the court of appeals explained in Gardner , one who "mixes a prescription medication with alcohol or other controlled substances" is not eligible for the involuntary intoxication defense. 12 Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d at 42 ; see also City of Waukesha v. Godfrey, 41 Wis. 2d 401, 406 , 164 N.W.2d 314 (1969). ¶ 34. 2014And, as the court of appeals explained in Gardner , one who "mixes a prescription medication with alcohol or other controlled substances" is not eligible for the involuntary intoxication defense. 12 Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d at 42 ; see also City of Waukesha v. Godfrey, 41 Wis. 2d 401, 406 , 164 N.W.2d 314 (1969). ¶ 34.	1	1
Vollmer v. Luetygreen wis · 1990 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991We may, nevertheless, reverse the judgment of conviction if we are convinced either "that the real controversy has not been fully tried, or that it is probable that justice has for any reason miscarried." See sec. 752.35, Stats.; Vollmer v. Luety, 156 Wis. 2d 1, 17-21 , 456 N.W.2d 797 , 805-806 625 (1990); see also Vollmer, 156 Wis. 2d at 26-27 , 456 N.W.2d at 809 (Bablitch, J., concurring for six of the court's seven members). 1991We may, nevertheless, reverse the judgment of conviction if we are convinced either "that the real controversy has not been fully tried, or that it is probable that justice has for any reason miscarried." See sec. 752.35, Stats.; Vollmer v. Luety, 156 Wis. 2d 1, 17-21 , 456 N.W.2d 797 , 805-806 625 (1990); see also Vollmer, 156 Wis. 2d at 26-27 , 456 N.W.2d at 809 (Bablitch, J., concurring for six of the court's seven members).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
United States v. Johnson green ca8 · 2011 2 sentences 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute"s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an un 2013See, e.g., United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Johnson, 652 F.3d 918 , 922 n.2 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government [has] the burden of proving each element of a crime as set out in a jury instruction to which it failed to object, even if the unchallenged jury instruction goes beyond the criminal statute''s requirements."); State v. Azure, 186 P.3d 1269, 1275 (Mont. 2008) (a failure to object to a proposed jury instruction becomes the law of the case once delivered, whether or not it includes an u	2	2013–2013
State v. Emmanuel Earl Trammell green wis · 2019 2 sentences 2025Kelsey contends that the jury instruction denied him his due process rights and his right to a unanimous verdict. ¶47 Whether a jury instruction provided by a circuit court “deprives a defendant of his [or her] right to due process is a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Trammell, 2019 WI 59, ¶16 , 387 Wis. 2d 156 , 928 N.W.2d 564 (citation omitted). 2025Kelsey contends that the jury instruction denied him his due process rights and his right to a unanimous verdict. ¶47 Whether a jury instruction provided by a circuit court “deprives a defendant of his [or her] right to due process is a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Trammell, 2019 WI 59, ¶16 , 387 Wis. 2d 156 , 928 N.W.2d 564 (citation omitted).	1	2025–2025
State v. McGowan green wisctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2024Elmer relies on State v. McGowan, 2006 WI App 80 , 291 Wis. 2d 212 , 715 N.W.2d 631 , in which we overturned a circuit court decision to admit other acts evidence. 2024Elmer relies on State v. McGowan, 2006 WI App 80 , 291 Wis. 2d 212 , 715 N.W.2d 631 , in which we overturned a circuit court decision to admit other acts evidence.	1	2024–2024
State v. Glenn green wis · 1996 2 sentences 2024As a general rule, “[t]he failure to object to a proposed jury instruction constitutes waiver of any error.” State v. Glenn, 199 Wis. 2d 575, 589 , 545 N.W.2d 230 (1996). 5 No. 2023AP46-CR prejudice that substantially outweighs the probative value of the more serious acts. 2024As a general rule, “[t]he failure to object to a proposed jury instruction constitutes waiver of any error.” State v. Glenn, 199 Wis. 2d 575, 589 , 545 N.W.2d 230 (1996). 5 No. 2023AP46-CR prejudice that substantially outweighs the probative value of the more serious acts.	1	2024–2024
State v. Dundon green wis · 1999 2 sentences 2021State v. Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, ¶46 , 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999); see also State v. Davidson, 44 Wis. 2d 177, 191-92 , 170 N.W.2d 755 (1969). 2021State v. Dundon, 226 Wis. 2d 654, ¶46 , 594 N.W.2d 780 (1999); see also State v. Davidson, 44 Wis. 2d 177, 191-92 , 170 N.W.2d 755 (1969).	1	2021–2021
State v. Gardner green wisctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2014And, as the court of appeals explained in Gardner , one who "mixes a prescription medication with alcohol or other controlled substances" is not eligible for the involuntary intoxication defense. 12 Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d at 42 ; see also City of Waukesha v. Godfrey, 41 Wis. 2d 401, 406 , 164 N.W.2d 314 (1969). ¶ 34.	1	2014–2014
Christiansen v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. green wis · 1931 1 sentence 2012In contrast to the case before us, the proposed jury instruction at issue in Christiansen would have explained the law more comprehensively, see id., whereas in this case, the proposed instruction would have inaccurately explained it.	1	2012–2012
State v. Wille green wisctapp · 2007 2 sentences 2008State v. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, ¶ 23 , 299 Wis.2d 531 , 728 N.W.2d 343 . 2008State v. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, ¶ 23 , 299 Wis.2d 531 , 728 N.W.2d 343 .	1	2008–2008
Tillman v. Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co. neutral wis · 1953 2 sentences 2005"It is for the [trial] court to instruct the jury upon all the questions fairly in the case, but it is not error to refuse to emphasize any particular phase of the case in favor of either party. . . ." Tillman v. Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co., 263 Wis. 596, 598 , 58 N.W.2d 296 (1953) (citation omitted). 2005"It is for the [trial] court to instruct the jury upon all the questions fairly in the case, but it is not error to refuse to emphasize any particular phase of the case in favor of either party. . . ." Tillman v. Michigan-Wisconsin Pipe Line Co., 263 Wis. 596, 598 , 58 N.W.2d 296 (1953) (citation omitted).	1	2005–2005
State v. DeRango green wisctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2004State v. DeRango, 229 Wis. 2d 1, 34 , 599 N.W.2d 27 (Ct. App. 1999). ¶14 Furthermore, Vigil's arguments are based solely upon pure speculation about what happened during jury deliberation. 2004State v. DeRango, 229 Wis. 2d 1, 34 , 599 N.W.2d 27 (Ct. App. 1999). ¶14 Furthermore, Vigil's arguments are based solely upon pure speculation about what happened during jury deliberation.	1	2004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 805.13 (5) WI § Wis. Stat. § 808.10 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 972.11 (4) WI § Wis. Stat. § 805.18 (3) WI § Wis. Stat. § 946.41 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 115 (1986–2026) WA 76 (1983–2026) MS 58 (1992–2026) FL 52 (1979–2026) TX 51 (1988–2026) VA 47 (1999–2026) IL 40 (1985–2026) UT 34 (1982–2026) IN 32 (2005–2025) CA 31 (1992–2026) NV 30 (1998–2022) MT 27 (1981–2026) SD 24 (1978–2026) OR 24 (1994–2026) MD 19 (1993–2025) AZ 17 (2004–2026) CO 15 (1993–2026) ND 13 (1999–2023) WY 13 (1990–2026) NE 12 (1990–2025) WI 12 (1991–2025) PA 12 (1982–2025) LA 11 (2000–2022) CT 10 (1994–2019) ID 10 (1995–2023) NC 10 (1990–2026) MN 9 (1990–2015) NM 9 (1997–2025) NH 9 (1984–2010) IA 9 (1993–2026) KS 8 (2014–2024) MO 8 (2006–2020) MA 8 (1994–2023) MI 8 (1974–2024) TN 7 (1996–2019) AL 7 (1989–2004) DC 6 (1995–2024) ME 6 (2012–2025) HI 5 (1996–2021) AK 4 (1991–2019) AR 4 (2003–2026) DE 2 (2015–2025) SC 2 (2001–2005) GA 2 (2014–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check