195 Wis. 2d 117 - State v. Koeppen’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2023
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 119 Wis. 2d 664 - State v. Wittrock · 118 Wis. 2d 339 - State v. Wickstrom · 119 Wis. 2d 651 - State v. Farr · 89 Wis. 2d 495 - Cresci v. State · 189 Wis. 2d 505 - State v. Gerard
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of the charging document is to inform the accused of the acts he allegedly committed and to enable him to understand the offense charged so he can prepare his defense. The charging document may be amended if there is no prejudice to the defendant. When an amendment to the charging document does not change the crime charged, and when the alleged offense is the same and results from the same transaction, there is no prejudice to the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) If the actor is a repeater, as that term is defined in sub. (2), and the present conviction is for any crime for which imprisonment may be imposed, except for an escape under s. 946.42 or a failure to report under s. 946.425, the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by law for that crime may be increased as follows: (a) A maximum term of imprisonment of one year or less may be increased to not more than 2 years. ... (2) The actor is a repeater if the actor was convicted of a felony during the 5-year period immediately preceding the commission of the crime for which the actor presently is being sentenced, or if the actor was convicted of a misdemeanor on 3 separate occasions during that same period, which convictions remain of record and unreversed.... In computing the preceding 5-year period, time which the actor spent in actual confinement serving a criminal sentence shall be excluded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bonds“even though the rules of evidence generally do not apply at a sentencing hearing . .. the legislature via § 973.12(1), Stats., and the case law applying that statute has reintroduced a degree of formal proof requirements as to repeater allegations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Saunders
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.