State v. Ziegler, 2012 WI 73

Ziegler was charged with 14 counts, including interference with child custody and five counts of second-degree sexual assault of Nicole, arising from alleged acts with four teenage girls.
The State alleged Kaitlyn, then 14, stayed at Ziegler's residence for about a week without parental consent between Jan 18–28, 2008, during which sexual contact occurred.
Kaitlyn’s mother testified she did not consent to Kaitlyn staying with Ziegler and did not know him at the time.
The court admitted Ziegler’s mug shot at trial; the defense objected but the objection was overruled.
Ziegler wore a stun belt at trial; the court noted no visible restraints were apparent.
Bowden (2007) held that § 948.31(2) requires initial parental permission; the court granted certification to resolve whether that interpretation conflicted with the plain statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bowden's interpretation of § 948.31(2) aligns with the plain language	Ziegler argues Bowden is correct and the State failed to prove initial permission.	State contends Bowden's requirement is not required by the statute.	Bowden is withdrawn; the statute does not require initial permission.
Sufficiency of evidence for interference with child custody	State contends evidence shows Kaitlyn was withheld >12 hours without consent.	Ziegler argues no initial permission is needed and Bowden controls.	Evidence is sufficient to convict Ziegler.
Multiplicity of Counts 10–14 (Nicole acts)	Counts 10–14 are separate acts and not multiplicitous.	Counts are similar and should be multiplicitous under Hirsch.	Counts 10–14 are not multiplicitous; each act is distinct in fact.
Admission of mug shot and due process	Mug shot identification was properly grounded and necessary for testimony.	Mug shot could prejudice and amount to a prior-conviction implication.	Admission did not violate due process; not reversible error.
Stun belt at trial	Stun belt was necessary to maintain order and safety.	Champlain requires a sua sponte inquiry into necessity.	Circuit court did not abuse its discretion; stun belt appropriate.

State v. Bowden, 306 Wis. 2d 393 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (interprets 'withholds a child for more than 12 hours' and initial permission)
State v. Patterson, 329 Wis. 2d 599, 790 N.W.2d 909 (Wis. 2009) (two-prong multiplicity framework; elements vs. fact)
State v. Davison, 263 Wis. 2d 145, 666 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 2003) (multiplicity and legislative intent framework)
State v. Multaler, 252 Wis. 2d 54, 643 N.W.2d 437 (Wis. 2002) (fact-specific analysis for multiplicity)
State v. Eisch, 96 Wis. 2d 25, 291 N.W.2d 800 (Wis. 1980) (distinct acts despite same law)
State v. Grinder, 190 Wis. 2d 541, 527 N.W.2d 326 (Wis. 1995) (restraining devices and court discretion)
State v. Harrington, 490 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1973) (mug shot evidence and due process considerations)