State v. Patterson
2010 WI 130
Wis.2010Background
- Patterson was convicted at a seven-day Juneau County trial of first-degree reckless homicide by delivery of a controlled substance and contributing to the delinquency of a child with death as a consequence for Tanya S.'s death from Oxycodone.
- Tanya, seventeen, died from a prescription opioid overdose after Patterson allegedly supplied her the drug.
- Patterson challenged the convictions via postconviction relief; the circuit court denied relief and the court of appeals affirmed.
- This court holds that the two homicide-related convictions are not multiplicitous and may be punished concurrently.
- The court also addresses whether 17-year-olds fall within the statute’s “child” definition for § 948.40(1), whether the jury instruction on § 940.02(2)(a) was proper, and whether prosecutorial misconduct merits a new trial.
- The decision affirms the court of appeals and analyzes statutory interpretation, legislative history, and evidentiary issues to support the rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiplicity of convictions | Patterson argues § 939.66(2) bars multiple punishments. | The State argues prosecutors may charge and convict multiple offenses with different harms. | Not multiplicitous; legislature permits cumulative punishments. |
| Definition of 'child' for § 948.40(1) | Seventeen-year-olds are not within § 948.40(1)'s scope. | Exception for 17+ only applies to prosecuting, not to § 948.40(1). | § 948.40(1) applies to contributing to delinquency of any child under 18. |
| Jury instruction on § 940.02(2)(a) | Fourth element could permit conviction based on allegations not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. | When read as a whole, the instruction correctly places burden on State. | Not erroneous; the instruction properly conveyed burden and elements. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Haseltine violations) | Prosecutor improperly used other witnesses’ statements to impeach/refresh recollection. | Haseltine violations occurred but did not prejudice the trial; no new trial warranted. | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; any error was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davison, 263 Wis. 2d 145, 666 N.W.2d 1 (2003) (Wis. 2003) (four-factor multiplicity framework; distinguishes homicide-type from other crimes; supports not barring multiple punishments when appropriate)
- State v. Lechner, 217 Wis. 2d 392, 576 N.W.2d 912 (1998) (Wis. 1998) (elements-vs-law/fact analysis for multiplicity; guides § 939.66(2) analysis)
- Wis. Stat. § 939.66, — (—) (statutory framework governing included and multiple punishments)