State v. Charles Chvala
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2005 WI 30 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: COMPLETE TITLE: OF WISCONSIN 03-0442-CR State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles Chvala, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 2004 WI App 53 Reported at: 271 Wis. 2d 115, 678 N.W.2d 880 (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 defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by James A. Olson, Dixon R. Gahnz, John C. Carlson, Jr. and Lawton & Cates, S.C., Madison, and oral argument by James A. Olson. 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 30 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 03-0442-CR (L.C. No. 02 CF 2451) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin, FILED Plaintiff-Respondent, MAR 23, 2005 v. Charles Chvala, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. ¶1 that the PER CURIAM. charges The against court the is unanimous petitioner do Affirmed. in not determining violate the doctrine of separation of powers, nor do such charges involve a violation of the Speech and Constitution (Art. IV, § 16). in determining that Debate Clause of the Wisconsin Further, the court is unanimous Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) (2001-02), the statute that the petitioner has been charged with violating, does not here circumscribe legitimate legislative activity and, therefore, is not overbroad. The court is also unanimous in determining that the issues presented are justiciable, in that No. the political question doctrine does not 03-0442-CR interfere with the holding that the court deciding these matters. ¶2 The petitioner court is also standing to Fair Process, has Notice, and unanimous raise the the in issues vagueness related of Wis. to Due Stat. § 946.12(3) as applied, but the court is equally divided as to whether the petitioner has 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 03-0442-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.
