State v. Hanson
808 N.W.2d 390
Wis.2012Background
- Hanson speeding 83 in 65; Deputy Klinkhammer stopped him and requested compliance.
- Hanson exited his car, confronted the deputy, and rolled down the window; tension escalated.
- Hanson fled the scene after being told he would be arrested, driving away as deputies pursued.
- Hanson called 911 for directions to a police station, arguing fear for his safety.
- Sturino joined the pursuit; Hanson was stopped at a red light, deputies broke his window and pulled him from the vehicle.
- Convicted of felony fleeing under Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3); self-defense rejected; appeal challenged evidentiary ruling on officer’s character and broader constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of § 346.04(3) willful standard | Hanson argues willful requires heightened state of mind beyond intent | State argues willful means subjective disregard of officer’s signal | Willful requires subjective understanding; no added good-faith defense; either willful or wanton may satisfy statute. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence does not show knowingly fleeing or willful disregard | Evidence supports jury finding under proper interpretation | Evidence sufficient to sustain guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| 904.04(l)(b) victim evidence | Klinkhammer as victim allows character evidence of the officer | Officer not a victim under § 904.04(l)(b); exclusion proper | Officer not a “victim” for evidentiary purposes; exclusion proper. |
| Right to present a defense | Exclusion of certain character evidence compromised defense | Rules of evidence permit limits; due process not violated | No constitutional infirmity; right to present defense preserved. |
| Interest of justice; new trial | New trial warranted due to statutory interpretation issues | No basis for new trial; error not material | No new trial; decision affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cissell, 127 Wis. 2d 205 (Wis. 1985) (defined willful in criminal context; clarified malice vs. willful intent)
- State v. Preston, 34 Wis. 675 (Wis. 1874) (willful meaning context-dependent; precursor on willful)
- State v. Haase, 2006 WI App 86, 293 Wis. 2d 322 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (restitution/victim concept; not controlling for evidentiary rule § 904.04(1)")
- State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis. 2d 493 (Wis. 1990) (standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38, 324 Wis. 2d 586 (Wis. 2010) (statutory interpretation and application principles)