Opinion ID: 4510047
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Elements-Only Analysis

Text: ¶26 Mr. Brantner says the offenses described in Counts 1 and 3 of the State's Complaint are the same both in law and in fact because they both charge him with possessing oxycodone contrary to Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(am). Offenses are identical in law if one offense does not require proof of any fact in addition to those which must be proved for the other offense. Ziegler, 342 Wis. 2d 256, ¶60. They are identical in fact unless they are separated in time or are of a significantly different nature. State v. Eisch, 96 Wis. 2d 25, 31, 291 N.W.2d 800 (1980). To be 18 No. 2018AP53-CR separate in time means that there was sufficient time for reflection between the acts such that the defendant re-committed himself to the criminal conduct. Multaler, 252 Wis. 2d 54, ¶56. Charges are 'different in nature' even when they are the same types of acts as long as each required 'a new volitional departure in the defendant's course of conduct.' Id., ¶57. ¶27 We begin with assessing whether the offenses described in Counts 1 and 3, both of which charged Mr. Brantner with violating Wis. Stat. § 961.41(3g)(am), are identical in law. This statute says: No person may possess or attempt to possess a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog unless the person obtains the substance or the analog directly from, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order of, a practitioner who is acting in the course of his or her professional practice, or unless the person is otherwise authorized by this chapter to possess the substance or the analog. § 961.41(3g). The statute goes on to distinguish between different types of controlled substances to determine the gravity of the offense. According to Wis. Stat. § 961.16(2)(a)11., the pills referenced in both Counts 1 and 3 were Schedule II narcotic drugs, which comprise (inter alia), [a]ny material, compound, mixture or preparation which contains any quantity of oxycodone. (Emphasis added.) Possession of Schedule II narcotic drugs (such as oxycodone) is a Class I felony: (am) Schedule I and II narcotic drugs. If a person possesses or attempts to possess a controlled substance included in schedule I or II which is a narcotic drug, or a controlled substance analog of a controlled substance included in schedule I or II which is a narcotic drug, the person is guilty of a Class I felony. 19 No. 2018AP53-CR § 961.41(3g)(am). Because our statutes proscribe possession of pills without regard to the amount of oxycodone they might contain, there is no legal distinction between possessing a pill containing 20mg of oxycodone as opposed to one containing only 5mg of oxycodone. That, however, is the only difference between Counts 1 and 3. As a result, neither count require[d] proof of any fact in addition to those which must be proved for the other offense. See Ziegler, 342 Wis. 2d 256, ¶60. We must therefore conclude that the offenses described in Counts 1 and 3 are identical in law. ¶28 The State says Counts 1 and 3 are different in fact because they were different in both time and nature. It says they are different in nature because it had to prove that Brantner committed two different volitional acts of possession by obtaining two different types of oxycodone pills from different sources, showing that each possession required 'a new volitional departure' by Brantner. See, e.g., Multaler, 252 Wis. 2d 54, ¶57 (explaining that charges are 'different in nature' . . . as long as each required 'a new volitional departure in the defendant's course of conduct.'). The counts are different in time, the State says, because Brantner either had to have taken possession of the 20mg oxycodone pills at some point when Michael[13] had a prescription for 20mg oxycodone pills, or obtained them from somewhere else. Either way, the State says, Brantner had to complete the act of Michael is Mr. Brantner's brother, and it is the State's 13 theory that Mr. Brantner stole the pills from him. 20 No. 2018AP53-CR taking possession of each type of pill separately, therefore those acts were separate in time . . . . See, e.g., Multaler, 252 Wis. 2d 54, ¶56 (explaining that offenses are different in time if there was sufficient time for reflection between the acts such that the defendant re-committed himself to the criminal conduct.). ¶29 Although the State is correct about what it had to prove, it is not possible to reconcile its conclusion with the evidence of record.14 The evidence certainly shows that Mr. Brantner possessed 20mg and 5mg oxycodone pills. But nothing in the record directly establishes that Mr. Brantner obtained the different dosages via two different volitional acts or temporally separated acts of acquisition. To remedy this dearth of evidence, the State proposed that we conclude the offenses were different in both nature and time through necessary inference from the evidence of record. ¶30 The State's inferential reasoning cannot, by itself, connect its premises to its conclusions. Instead, its argument outsourced most of the evidentiary work to some pretty hefty The record says very little about how Mr. Brantner obtained 14 the pills. At trial, the jury heard a recording of a phone call between Mr. Brantner and his significant other in which Mr. Brantner commented that he had gotten the pills from his brother, Michael, and that he'd had the pills since 2010. Detective Vergos testified that he attempted to ascertain the source of the pills by searching Michael's home. He testified that he discovered prescription pill bottles that matched four of the five types of pills and dosages found in Mr. Brantner's boot, but that he found no evidence that Michael had a prescription for 20mg oxycodone pills. 21 No. 2018AP53-CR assumptions. The foundational assumption is that Mr. Brantner could not have obtained the 20mg and 5mg pills at the same time. It derives this assumption from one of two alternative scenarios, both of which rely on their own chain of assumptions. The first scenario started with the assumption that Mr. Brantner obtained all of the oxycodone pills from his brother's house. The State further assumed that his brother never had both 20mg and 5mg pills in the house at the same time. This assumption, however, required supporting assumptions of its own. So it assumed that the brother obtained both the 20mg and 5mg pills from valid prescriptions. It then observed that, when Mr. Brantner was arrested, his brother had a prescription for only the 5mg oxycodone pills. From this the State assumed that the 20mg pills must have come from a prior (and now superseded) prescription. The State had to also assume that the brother did not fill the prescription for the 5mg pills until he had used all of the 20mg pills from the assumed previous prescription. If we stack up all of these assumptions, the State says, we reach the conclusion that Mr. Brantner's brother never had 20mg and 5mg pills in the house at the same time. And that necessarily means Mr. Brantner had to have acquired the pills at different times. ¶31 Alternatively, the State allows for the possibility that the 20mg and 5mg pills actually were in the brother's house at the same time. In this scenario, the State assumes that the brother assiduously kept his 20mg and 5mg pills separated into their respective, closed containers. To obtain both types of pills, therefore, Mr. Brantner would have had to open two separate 22 No. 2018AP53-CR containers to access the drugs, thereby introducing a temporal distinction (however small) between the acquisitions. ¶32 The State needs all of these assumptions (or their alternatives) to be true to operationalize its necessary inference argument. But one need not be a cynic to recognize that the State's assumptions describe a world that is substantially neater and more precise than the one in which we live. It is altogether possible that each of the State's assumptions (or its alternatives) reflect the process by which Mr. Brantner actually obtained the 20mg and 5mg oxycodone pills. But there is nothing to say that any of the assumptions is necessarily true. For example, Mr. Brantner's brother could have obtained the 20mg pills without a prescription, making it possible for him to have the 20mg and 5mg pills in the house at the same time. Or he may have had prescriptions for both 20mg and 5mg pills that overlapped; or he may not have finished the 20mg pills before filling the prescription for the 5mg pills, either of which circumstance would make it possible for both dosages to be present in the house at the same time. And nothing says that, assuming Mr. Brantner's brother had 20mg and 5mg pills in the house at the same time, he would keep them carefully separated into different containers. And even if he did, nothing says Mr. Brantner did not just swipe the containers at the same time and only later emptied them into a bag for transport in his boot. ¶33 All of this means that, according to the record before us, there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Brantner must have obtained the 20mg and 5mg pills separately. If Mr. Brantner 23 No. 2018AP53-CR obtained all the oxycodone pills simultaneously, it is not possible for there to have been different volitional departures in his course of conduct (meaning the offenses are not different in nature). And simultaneous acquisition also necessarily means they cannot be different in time. Nothing in the record suggests that the State's assumptions describe the method by which Mr. Brantner obtained the oxycodone pills. So, unless we credit those assumptions (and we do not), the offenses described in Counts 1 and 3 are the same in fact.15 ¶34 We conclude that, pursuant to the Blockburger elementsonly test, the offenses described in Counts 1 and 3 are identical in law and fact.