State v. Scott R. Jensen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2005 WI 31 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 03-0106-CR State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Scott R. Jensen, Steven M. Foti, and Sherry L. Schultz, Defendants-Appellants-Petitioners. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 2004 WI App 89 Reported at: 272 Wis. 2d 707. 681 N.W.2d 230 (Ct. App. 2004-Published) OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: January 6, 2005 SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: Circuit Dane Daniel R. Moeser JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: March 23, 2005 WILCOX, PROSSER, and BUTLER, J.J., did not participate. ATTORNEYS: For the defendants-appellants-petitioners there were briefs by Stephen J. Meyer and Meyer Law Office, Madison (on behalf of Scott R. Jensen); Stephen L. Morgan and Murphy Desmond, SC, Madison (on behalf of Sherry L. Schultz); and Franklyn M. Gimbel, Kathryn A. Keppel and Gimbel, Reilly Guerin & Brown, Milwaukee (on behalf of Steven M. Foti), and oral argument by Franklyn M. Gimbel (on behalf of Steven M. Foti), Stephen J. Meyer (on behalf of Scott R. Jensen), and Stephen L. Morgan (on behalf of Sherry L. Schultz). For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Barbara L. Oswald, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 2005 WI 31 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 03-0106-CR (L.C. No. 02 CF 2453 02 CF 2454 02 CF 2455) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, FILED v. MAR 23, 2005 Scott R. Jensen, Steven M. Foti, and Sherry L. Schultz, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Defendants-AppellantsPetitioners. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. ¶1 PER CURIAM. that the charges doctrine of The against separation court the of is unanimous petitioners powers. do Affirmed. in not Further, determining violate the the court is unanimous in determining that Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) (2001-02), the statute violating, that does not the petitioners here have circumscribe in determining that the charged legitimate activity and, therefore, is not overbroad. unanimous been with legislative The court is also issues presented are No. 03-0106-CR justiciable, in that the political question doctrine does not interfere with the court deciding these matters. ¶2 The court is also unanimous in holding that the petitioners have standing to raise the issues related to Due Process, Fair Notice, and the vagueness of Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) as applied, but the court is equally divided as to whether the petitioners have met the burden of establishing that the charges here violate those principles. Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson and Justice Ann Walsh Bradley would affirm the court of appeals on those issues, and Justice N. Patrick Crooks and Justice Patience D. Roggensack would reverse on those issues. ¶3 Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. By the Court. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. ¶4 Justices JON P. WILCOX, DAVID T. PROSSER, JR., and LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR. did not participate. 2 No. 1 03-0106-CR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
