262 N.W. 696 (Wis. 1935), Spoo v. State
|Citation:||262 N.W. 696, 219 Wis. 285|
|Opinion Judge:||CHESTER A. FOWLER, J.|
|Party Name:||SPOO, Plaintiff in error, v. THE STATE, Defendant in error|
|Attorney:||For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by Gooding & Gooding of Fond du Lac, and oral argument by L. E. Gooding. For the defendant in error there was a brief by the Attorney General, J. E. Messerschmidt, assistant attorney general, and Robert P. Stebhins, district attorney of Green Lake coun...|
|Case Date:||October 08, 1935|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Wisconsin|
Argued September 13, 1935.
ERROR to review a judgment of the circuit court for Green Lake county: C. F. VAN PELT, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.
Hank F. Spoo was convicted of obtaining $20 in money by false pretenses, and he brings error, the court having ascertained that defendant previously had been convicted of a felony.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Criminal action by the state of Wisconsin against Hank F. Spoo. Judgment of conviction was entered. By writ of error the defendant brings up the record for review.
[219 Wis. 286]
The defendant was charged in the language of the statute, sec. 343.25, with obtaining $ 20 in money by false pretenses. He pleaded guilty. After the plea was entered, the court ascertained that he had previously been convicted of a felony, and under the repeater statute, sec. 359.13, imposed a sentence of not less than one nor more than five years. The information did not charge the prior conviction, nor did the district attorney in writing charge the defendant with it after the fact was ascertained. The penalty for obtaining less than $ 100 in violation of the false pretense statute is imprisonment in the state prison or county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of $ 100. The defendant was not represented by counsel.
The defendant claims that the court was without jurisdiction to impose any sentence because the information does not state any offense, and bases the contention that no offense is stated in the information because, as he claims, in pleading under the false pretense statute it is necessary to set out the specific representation claimed to have been made, and to charge that it was false, that it was relied on by the person defrauded, and that such person was induced by the representation [219 Wis. 287] to part with his money, and cites State v. Green, 7 Wis. 676, and Owens v. State, 83 Wis. 496, 53 N.W. 736, 737, in support of his contention.
In the former case a motion was made in arrest of judgment after verdict for the reason that the indictment did not state any offense. No objection to the indictment had theretofore been made. The trial judge certified the case to the supreme court for determination of the questions raised by the motion. The general charge made in the indictment was that the defendant falsely pretended that he was a merchant in the city of New Orleans, and that he had money to the amount of $ 250 belonging to him on deposit with a bank, which statements were expressly negatived as false, and that with intent to cheat and defraud the makers of the check he unlawfully and designedly obtained from them their check for the sum and of the value of $ 251.25. The court ruled that these "bald naked statements" were "too general and uncertain to constitute an offense" under the statute, which was then the same as now. There is also a statement in the opinion that without a statement that the makers were...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP