Court Opinion

ID: 9691421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:30:58.110102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:18.972022
License: Public Domain

DYKMAN, P.J.
(dissenting). If we are to use the "moving picture" test noted in Hamiel v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 656, 665 n.4, 285 N.W.2d 639, 645 (1979), the camera stopped when Henthorn obtained the first bottle of codeine and left the pharmacy. Hamiel notes that "[t]he key inquiry is a determination of whether, under all the facts and circumstances, the accused was likely to voluntarily cease and desist from completion of the criminal act." Id. at 667, 285 N.W.2d at 646. In my view, the word "likely" is the important part of the test. The word "likely" is the equivalent of "probably." See Pucci v. Rausch, 51 Wis. 2d 513, 519, 187 N.W.2d 138, 142 (1971). "Probably" and "likely" are not words of certainty. The word "probably" defines a common sense view of cause and effect. It focuses on what usually happens in the affairs of people. Had Henthorn been apprehended with the forged prescription immediately after she forged it, this would be a closer case. But I believe that Henthorn crossed the Rubicon when she presented the forged prescription to the pharmacist. *537That is the difficult part of committing the crime of acquiring possession of a controlled substance by forgery. Purchasing the third bottle is the easy part. The reason codeine is regulated is the danger of misuse and addiction. Persons who desire excessive amounts of controlled substances are known to commit crimes to obtain them. I conclude that after Henthorn obtained the first bottle of codeine, a reasonable jury could conclude that she was unlikely to cease and desist from getting the second and then the third bottle of the substance. I would affirm Henthorn's conviction, and therefore I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.