Court Opinion

ID: 9575393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:13:31.162612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:10.110591
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting in part). I would affirm circuit court Judge Boll’s vacat*396ing the defendant’s conviction. Judge Boll declared the statute to be unconstitutional. As I explained in my concurrence in Bachowski v. Salamone, 139 Wis. 2d 397, 407 N.W.2d 533, I conclude the statute as construed by this court to include verbal communications is unconstitutional.
Furthermore, even if the statute is constitutional, the conviction in this case must be vacated because, under the test set forth in Bachowski, the injunction upon which the conviction is based is invalid. Bachow-ski requires that the injunction "be specific as to the acts and conduct which are enjoined.” Majority opinion page 414. The injuction in this case restrained and enjoined Sarlund "from telephoning, contacting, writing to, intimidating or in any way harassing the Petitioner, Julie Ramstad." See Injunction entered by the Rock county circuit court on June 4, 1984; Record, 24-23, 24. This injunction has the same defects as the injunction in Bachowski, 139 Wis. 2d at 397 (majority opinion pages 414-415), and the conviction must be vacated.
The majority reverses the conviction and remands the cause to the Dane county circuit court for further proceedings, which as I understand it includes a hearing on the defendant’s request to withdraw the plea. Since the majority does not address the issue of the validity of the injunction, I assume the defendant may raise this issue in the Dane county circuit court.
I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE NATHAN S. HEFFERNAN joins this opinion.