Opinion ID: 1237709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: state v. haines, et al.facts

Text: In Haines, the facts are as follows: Ms. Haines and eight others (collectively hereafter known as the Defendants) were arrested for violating sec. 943.145, Stats., in the Bread and Roses Women's Health Center located in Milwaukee. The center provides various medical health services for women; including abortions. On the day of the incident in question, the Defendants and several others met down the street from the building in which the health center was located on the seventh floor. They straggled into the building, signing in at a security guard's station on the ground floor. The group assembled in the elevator; some people had waited on other floors to join the rest in the elevator. When they reached the seventh floor they immediately saw the glass wall and door demarcating the area occupied by the health center. The door was unlocked and open to the public. There were no signs which restricted entry. The group then entered the health center. Two individuals from the group blocked the door to the facility and refused entry to anybody, including the police when they arrived later. Several others locked arms and blocked entry into the facility's medical treatment rooms. Four of the Defendants entered one treatment room and handcuffed themselves to various objects in that room. These Defendants had not brought the keys for the handcuffs and the police had to break the handcuffs to remove Defendants. Defendants disrupted the health center's operations and they were asked by the associate director of the center to leave. The Defendants refused. When police arrived, Defendants also refused a request by the police to leave. The police then arrested Defendants and removed them from the premises. Some of the Defendants had to be carried away in wheelchairs. Defendants were charged with violating sec. 943.145, Stats. Several pretrial motions were filed by the Defendants, including a motion to dismiss because the statute was inapplicable and unconstitutional. This latter motion was denied. A jury trial in the circuit court for Milwaukee county was held and Defendants were convicted of violating the statute. In voir dire and during the trial, Judge McMahon made several rulings which the Defendants now claim were error. Those rulings include Judge McMahon's decisions to exclude questions to prospective jurors about their specific beliefs on abortion, sustaining the State's objections to questions on cross-examination, which will be discussed more fully below, and prohibiting Defendants from introducing their proposed affirmative defenses of coercion and defense of others. Postconviction motions for relief from the verdict were made and Judge McMahon denied these motions, entered judgment, and sentenced the Defendants to a variety of penalties. At the sentencing hearing, Judge McMahon placed defendant Carol Robbins on probation of eighteen months with certain conditions. After the penalty was pronounced, Ms. Robbins stated she would not accept probation, and would rather spend time in jail. Judge McMahon did not honor her request and imposed probation. Ms. Robbins contends on appeal that Judge McMahon erred by not complying with her request to be sentenced to jail rather than placed on probation. Defendants appealed Judge McMahon's various rulings to the court of appeals. The case was consolidated with Migliorino and certified by the court of appeals to this court. We accepted the certification.