defense-of-others instruction (Wisconsin) · Go Syfert
← Wisconsin issues

defense-of-others instruction in Wisconsin

7 Wisconsin opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 2 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 (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Giminskigreen
wisctapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2018–2025
2 sentences

2018Giminski , 247 Wis. 2d 750 , ¶ 13 ("[T]he privilege of defense of others, like the privilege of self-defense, has two components, both of which must be satisfied by a defendant claiming the privilege: (1) subjective-the defendant must have actually believed he or she was acting to prevent or terminate an unlawful interference; and (2) objective-the belief must be reasonable."). ¶ 11 The circuit court denied Bryson's request for a defense of others instruction.

2018See Giminski , 247 Wis. 2d 750 , ¶ 16 (affirming a circuit court decision denying a defense of others instruction because "we see absolutely nothing that established a basis for any reasonable belief justifying [the defendant's] conduct") (emphasis in original) ).

22
United States v. David Lehmangreen
ca7 · 1972 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Citing United States v. Lehman, 468 F.2d 93 (7th Cir. 1972), he reminds us that an instruction regarding a theory of defense ordinarily is required where there is " 'any foundation in the evidence, even *757 though the evidence may be weak, insufficient, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.'" Id. at 108 (citation omitted).

2001Citing United States v. Lehman, 468 F.2d 93 (7th Cir. 1972), he reminds us that an instruction regarding a theory of defense ordinarily is required where there is " 'any foundation in the evidence, even *757 though the evidence may be weak, insufficient, inconsistent, or of doubtful credibility.'" Id. at 108 (citation omitted).

11
Whalen v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1980 · cited in 1 Wisconsin opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988
1 sentence

1988In his dissent to Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 701 (1980), Justice Rehnquist cited but disagreed with earlier cases suggesting that the legislature may offend the double jeopardy clause. 10 The defense of others instruction given by the court, with emphasis added, as as follows: The Criminal Code of Wisconsin provides that a person is privileged to defend a third person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another, under the same conditions, and by the "same,” means as those under and by which he or she is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawf

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
State v. MacHner green
wis · 1979
2 sentences

2025STAT. § 939.48 because if 5 See State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 9 No. 2023AP2013-CR a person provokes an attack of themselves, he or she is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such an attack. ¶20 As to McGrew, the circuit court stated that the “jury was … instructed to consider whether McGrew provoked [Aaron] into an alleged attack of herself.” If the jury found that McGrew had engaged in such provocation, explained the court, “the jury was instructed that Cross could still defend McGrew from [Aaron] if Cross actually and reasonably be

2025STAT. § 939.48 because if 5 See State v. Machner, 92 Wis. 2d 797 , 285 N.W.2d 905 (Ct. App. 1979). 9 No. 2023AP2013-CR a person provokes an attack of themselves, he or she is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such an attack. ¶20 As to McGrew, the circuit court stated that the “jury was … instructed to consider whether McGrew provoked [Aaron] into an alleged attack of herself.” If the jury found that McGrew had engaged in such provocation, explained the court, “the jury was instructed that Cross could still defend McGrew from [Aaron] if Cross actually and reasonably be

12025–2025
State v. Austin green
wisctapp · 2013
2 sentences

2018Austin , 349 Wis. 2d 744 , ¶19, 836 N.W.2d 833 . ¶83 The majority asserts that Austin is distinguishable from the instant case because in Austin , there was no burden of proof instruction on self-defense at all. 10 The majority's reasoning pays too little attention to how the court of appeals dealt with the defense-of-others instruction at issue in Austin and how the logic of that reasoning applies in the instant case. ¶84 In Austin , with regard to the first-degree charge, the circuit court properly instructed the jury on both the substantive law applicable to the defense-of-others *459 defen

2018Austin , 349 Wis. 2d 744 , ¶19, 836 N.W.2d 833 . ¶83 The majority asserts that Austin is distinguishable from the instant case because in Austin , there was no burden of proof instruction on self-defense at all. 10 The majority's reasoning pays too little attention to how the court of appeals dealt with the defense-of-others instruction at issue in Austin and how the logic of that reasoning applies in the instant case. ¶84 In Austin , with regard to the first-degree charge, the circuit court properly instructed the jury on both the substantive law applicable to the defense-of-others *459 defen

12018–2018
State v. Mendoza green
wis · 1977
2 sentences

1989State v. Mendoza, 80 Wis. 2d 122, 152-53 , 258 N.W.2d 260 (1977).

1989State v. Mendoza, 80 Wis. 2d 122, 152-53 , 258 N.W.2d 260 (1977).

11989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WI § Wis. Stat. § 939.48 (6) WI § Wis. Stat. § 752.35 (4)

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

MI 13 (2002–2025) OH 10 (2004–2026) WI 7 (1988–2025) MO 6 (2013–2025) MS 6 (2007–2018) CT 5 (2011–2020) MD 5 (2010–2026) CA 4 (2013–2025) UT 3 (2011–2026) KS 3 (1997–2024) OR 2 (2005–2023) WA 2 (2011–2020) MN 2 (2023–2024) VA 2 (2001–2010) HI 2 (2019–2021) IL 2 (2016–2016) NC 2 (2022–2022) CO 2 (2025–2026)

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