Opinion ID: 6321818
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The circumstances of Palmer's convictions

Text: ¶30 First, we look to the character traits evinced by the elements of Palmer's offenses. Palmer was convicted of two counts of strangulation and suffocation, four counts of battery, one count of fourth degree sexual assault, and one count of criminal damage to property. Importantly, each offense requires as an element that Palmer acted intentionally. In addition, the offenses contain the following elements:  Strangulation and suffocation requires that the defendant impede the normal breathing or circulation of blood by applying pressure on the throat or neck or blocking the victim's nose or mouth;  Battery requires that the defendant caused bodily harm to the victim without consent;  Fourth degree sexual assault requires that the defendant had nonconsensual sexual contact with the victim; and 22 No. 2019AP1671  Criminal damage to property requires that the defendant caused damage to property belonging to another without consent. These elements, informed by the domestic context of the offenses, exhibit the following character traits:  Willingness to use extreme acts of violence to achieve power and control over another person, particularly when the victim is isolated;  Willingness to engage in nonconsensual sexual conduct for the purpose of sexual gratification, degradation, or humiliation;  Willingness to use extreme violence to stop another person's breathing or circulation;  Disregard for the health and safety of others;  Lack of respect for bodily autonomy;  Unwillingness or inability to control anger or other emotions, particularly in the face of a perceived power differential; and  Disregard for the property rights of others. This list illustrates far more than a mere tendency to be antisocial. See Milwaukee County, 139 Wis. 2d at 831 (Abrahamson, J., concurring) (voicing concern that an emphasis on describing circumstances of an offense too generally could lead to viewing all individuals who have conviction records as anti-social recidivist[s] fit for few employment positions.). Palmer's crimes show a tendency to violently exert his power to control 23 No. 2019AP1671 others, and thus Palmer poses a real threat to the safety of others. ¶31 These traits are not overgeneralizations untethered from the circumstances of Palmer's crimes, as the dissent suggests. In every criminal case that results in a conviction, there is a direct link between the elements of an offense and the defendant's particular conduct. Indeed, the traits we have identified here are each borne out by the specific facts of Palmer's offenses. Palmer brutally attacked L.R., physically injuring her, endangering her life, and violating her sexually. No expert is needed to appreciate that these facts demonstrate Palmer's willingness to use extreme violence or his disregard for the health and safety of others. ¶32 In addition to these character traits, we consider other relevant and readily ascertainable circumstances of the offense such as the seriousness and number of offenses, how recent the conviction is, and whether there is a pattern of behavior.16 We consider the seriousness of the convicted offense because the more serious the offense, the less we can expect an employer to carry the risk of recidivism. See Milwaukee County, 139 Wis. 2d at 823 16The court in Milwaukee County emphasized the need for a semblance of practicality about what the test requires. A fullblown factual hearing is not only unnecessary, it is impractical. Milwaukee County, 139 Wis. 2d at 826. These circumstances can be ascertained from the record of conviction itself and thus do not require any full-blown hearing. Furthermore, the court in Milwaukee County similarly looked to the pattern of neglect of duty evinced by the twelve misdemeanor counts to determine there was a substantial relationship in that case. Id. at 828. 24 No. 2019AP1671 (This law should be liberally construed to effect its purpose of providing jobs for those who have been convicted of crime and at the same time not forcing employers to assume risks of repeat conduct by those whose conviction records show them to have the 'propensity' to commit similar crimes . . . .). The possible consequences to an employer of hiring a recidivist shoplifter is a matter of petty cash and missing property. The experience may be inconvenient and frustrating but is unlikely to result in any great harm to the employer, its staff, or its customers. In contrast, the possible consequences of an employer hiring someone who has committed strangulation, battery, and sexual assault include a threat to the very safety and bodily autonomy of employees and customers. If harm were to befall a customer or employee, an employer could face potential liability. ¶33 The recentness of the offenses and any pattern of conviction are additional readily ascertainable considerations. If significant time has passed since a potential employee's last conviction, then that tends to indicate rehabilitation and reduces the likelihood of recidivism. But the existence of convictions with similar elements that predate the most recent conviction undermine an inference of rehabilitation, increasing the recidivism risk. ¶34 Thus, in considering these circumstances of Palmer's convictions, we recognize the undeniable seriousness of his offenses and an emerging pattern of behavior. His convictions for battery and sexual assault are themselves grave offenses, but his conviction for strangulation and suffocation is a particularly 25 No. 2019AP1671 concerning offense given its association with homicide. Palmer applied for a job at Cree in 2015, only two years after his multiple 2013 convictions. Before that, Palmer had an additional domestic battery conviction in 2001, indicating an emerging pattern.