Wis. Stat. § 939.03
Wis. Stat. § 939.03
Jurisdiction over a crime committed by a Menominee Indian while on the Menominee Indian Reservation is discussed. State ex rel. Pyatskowit v. Montour, 72 Wis. 2d 277, 240 N.W.2d 186 (1976). Treaties between the federal government and Menominee tribe do not deprive the state of criminal subject matter jurisdiction over a crime committed by a Menominee outside the reservation. Sturdevant v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 247, 251 N.W.2d 50 (1977). Trial courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to convict defendants under unconstitutionally vague statutes. State ex rel. Skinkis v. Treffert, 90 Wis. 2d 528, 280 N.W.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1979). A fisherman who violated Minnesota and Wisconsin fishing laws while standing on the Minnesota bank of the Mississippi River was subject to Wisconsin prosecution. State v. Nelson, 92 Wis. 2d 855, 285 N.W.2d 924 (Ct. App. 1979) The state has exclusive jurisdiction over 2nd-offense drunk driving. A 2nd offender may not be charged as a 1st offender under a local ordinance. County of Walworth v. Rohner, 108 Wis. 2d 713, 324 N.W.2d 682 (1982). But see City of Eau Claire v. Booth, 2016 WI 65, 370 Wis. 2d 595, 882 N.W.2d 738, 15-0869. An unlawful arrest does not deprive a court of personal jurisdiction over a defendant. State v. Smith, 131 Wis. 2d 220, 388 N.W.2d 601 (1986). Jurisdiction in a criminal nonsupport action under s. 948.22 does not require that the child to be supported be a resident of Wisconsin during the charged period. State v. Gantt, 201 Wis. 2d 206, 548 N.W.2d 134 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2469. Objections to subject matter jurisdiction that turn on a question of law may not be waived by a guilty plea, but objections to subject matter jurisdiction based on a factual dispute do not survive. State v. Bratrud, 204 Wis. 2d 445, 555 N.W.2d 662 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-3402. A trial court did not lose subject matter jurisdiction over a count in a criminal complaint when an oral amendment of the count did not include one of the elements of the new offense. State v. Diehl, 205 Wis. 2d 1, 555 N.W.2d 174 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2444. A sentencing court is accorded incidental powers necessary to carry out its judicial functions and may modify an improper sentence, but it is not competent to enter a money judgment against the state for the recovery of improperly collected restitution under an improper sentence. State v. Minniecheske, 223 Wis. 2d 493, 590 N.W.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1998), 98-1369. For purposes of jurisdictional analysis, the defendant father's concealment in Canada of a child taken from the child's mother in Wisconsin was inseparable from the consequences of the concealment in Wisconsin, thus giving a Wisconsin court jurisdiction under sub. (1) (c) to try the defendant for a violation of s. 948.31. State v. Inglin, 224 Wis. 2d 764, 592 N.W.2d 666 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-3091. This section relates to both personal and territorial jurisdiction. When a trial court validly acquired territorial jurisdiction over the charged crime, it could not lose jurisdiction over a lesser-included crime. State v. Randle, 2002 WI App 116, 2002 WI App 116, 252 Wis. 2d 743, 647 N.W.2d 324, 01-1448. If there is no serious evidentiary dispute that the trial court has territorial jurisdiction, a special instruction on territorial jurisdiction need not be given to the jury. A person may be prosecuted for doing an act outside this state that has a criminally proscribed consequence within the state. State v. Brown, 2003 WI App 34, 260 Wis. 2d 125, 659 N.W.2d 110, 02-1000. The constituent elements of an offense under sub. (1) (a) are those elements of the criminal offense that the state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the prosecution of the offense. A constituent element of a criminal offense may be either the wrongful deed that comprises the physical component or the state of mind that the prosecution must prove that a defendant had. For 1st-degree homicide, sub. (1) (a) is satisfied upon proof that the defendant committed an act in Wisconsin manifesting the intent to kill. State v. Anderson, 2005 WI 54, 280 Wis. 2d 104, 695 N.W.2d 731, 03-3478. Age limits on criminal, juvenile delinquency, and juvenile in need of protection or services (JIPS) matters both define and restrict how a circuit court may address the specific case before the court, and not whether a circuit court can hear criminal, juvenile delinquency, or JIPS matters generally. Therefore, age limits are an issue of statutory competency, rather than subject matter jurisdiction. Unlike challenges to subject matter jurisdiction, challenges to statutory competency may be forfeited or waived. State v. Sanders, 2018 WI 51, 381 Wis. 2d 522, 912 N.W.2d 16, 15-2328. A defendant's age at the time he or she is charged, not the defendant's age at the time he or she commits the underlying conduct, determines whether the circuit court has statutory competency to hear the case as a criminal, juvenile delinquency, or juvenile in need of protection or services matter. Consequently, the circuit court in this case possessed statutory competency to hear the defendant's case as a criminal matter because the defendant was an adult at the time he was charged for conduct he committed before his tenth birthday. State v. Sanders, 2018 WI 51, 381 Wis. 2d 522, 912 N.W.2d 16, 15-2328.