Mays Law Office

Attorney Steve Mays Appears in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

On October 6, 2010, Attorney Steve Mays appeared before the Wisconsin Supreme Court for an Oral Argument.  This was the third time Attorney Mays has appeared in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to argue a case on behalf of a client.

In this case, he argued that the Stalking law - Wis. Stat. 940.32(2m)(b) - was not ambiguous, and that the plain meaning of the statute required that in order to enhance the offense of stalking from a Class I felony to a Class H felony, the present violation (which consists of a course of conduct, i.e., 2 or more acts) must occur within 7 years after the person's previous conviction for an offense against the same victim.  At first blush, this argument, and hence, the statute itself, would appear to be extremely convoluted and difficult to understand, and subject to more than one interpretation -- which was the holding of the Court of Appeals, which found the statute ambiguous.  However, as Attorney Mays pointed out, the fact that a statute is able to be understood by 2 or more persons in 2 or more ways, does not automatically render a statute ambiguous.  Rather, Wis. Stat. 940.32(2m)(b) was very clear in its meaning and the prosecution of his client, by permitting the admission of numerous uncharged acts prior to her previous conviction was error.

The video of the proceeding can be seen HERE.

The Oral Argument can be heard by clicking HERE.

Attorney Steve Mays preparing brief for WI Supreme Court

Attorney Steve Mays is currently preparing a brief for submission and eventual Oral Argument in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  This will be the third time Attorney Mays will have appeared in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to argue a case on behalf of a client.

In this case, he will be arguing: (1) a criminal defendant’s constitutional due process right to notice of the offense charged in a case where the information charged the current offense, but the trial court permitted the State to argue, and the jury to consider, alleged acts occurring over the course of five (5) years to meet an element of the charged offense of Stalking; (2) an issue of statutory interpretation with regard to Wis. Stat. § 940.32(2m)(b) which the Court of Appeals found to be ambiguous and which has not been addressed in any prior decision. (3) the novel issue of the propriety of clarifying legislative intent by virtue of sources completely unrelated to the legislative history; (4) the issue of the extent to which the appellate courts may rely upon extraneous sources outside the legislative history to interpret an ambiguous statute, as well as the differing legal analyses required for a due process notice challenge to an information versus that required upon a challenge that the charging document does not allege an offense under the law; and (5) the test applied by the Court of Appeals to determine whether the information was sufficient for due process notice to a defendant and whether it is in conflict with controlling opinions of both the Wisconsin and United States Supreme Courts.