Case Title: State v. Scott R. Jensen

Citation: 2005 WI 31

Docket Number: 2003AP000106-CR

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2005-03-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
2005 WI 31 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-0106-CR 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
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: 
March 23, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
January 6, 2005   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
Daniel R. Moeser   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 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, 
 
     v. 
 
Scott R. Jensen, Steven M. Foti, and  
Sherry L. Schultz,  
 
          Defendants-Appellants- 
          Petitioners. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 23, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Affirmed.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The court is unanimous in determining 
that the charges against the petitioners do not violate the 
doctrine of separation of powers.  Further, the court is 
unanimous in determining that Wis. Stat. § 946.12(3) (2001-02), 
the statute that the petitioners have 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 
No. 
03-0106-CR   
 
2 
 
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. 
 
 
No. 
03-0106-CR   
 
 
 
1