Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-0814 In re: the Return of Property in State v. Bergquist

By: dmc-admin//January 28, 2002//

01-0814 In re: the Return of Property in State v. Bergquist

By: dmc-admin//January 28, 2002//

Listen to this article

“The criminal code increases the penalty for an offender who commits a crime while possessing, using, or threatening to use a dangerous weapon. Wis. Stat. sec. 939.63. The increased penalty is intended to discourage the use of dangerous weapons in the commission of crimes by creating fear of additional punishment. Logically, the loss of dangerous weapons through forfeiture is also intended to deter the use of dangerous weapons in the commission of crimes.

Conversely, the return of dangerous weapons to persons who have committed crimes with them undermines deterrence. If people understand the risk of forfeiture on top of criminal prosecution, they are more likely to comply with the law.”

And, where the State has failed to contest defendant’s assertion that forfeiture of the guns, valued at $7,000, when the maximum fine for disorderly conduct is $1,000, would violate the Excessive Fines Clause, we must accept that assertion and affirm the order to return the guns to defendant.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Eau Claire County, Proctor, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Meri C. Larson, Eau Claire; Susan M. Crawford, Madison

For Respondent: Steven H. Gibbs, Eau Claire

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests