Boehm v. State

• Citation: 190 Wis. 609,209 N.W. 730
• Parties: BOEHM v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 21 June 1926
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

190 Wis. 609

209 N.W. 730

BOEHM

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 21, 1926.

Error to Municipal Court of Outagamie County; Theodore Berg, Judge.

Anton Boehm was convicted of failing to stop and give assistance and his name and address to one whom he had run down and injured by an automobile, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Plaintiff in error (hereinafter called the defendant) was convicted of failing to stop and give assistance, his name, and address to one Benjamin Beschta, whom he had run down and injured by an automobile. It appears that Beschta had just alighted from a street car going east on North street in the city of Appleton. He passed to the rear of the street car towards the north curb line of the street. Just as he cleared the street car he was struck and thrown to the pavement by an automobile driven west on North street by defendant. Defendant was driving at a very high rate of speed--according to his own testimony, between 20 and 25 miles per hour, and, according to other testimony, at a much greater speeed. He did not stop, but proceeded on his way at the same rate of speed, disregarding an arterial stop sign within a block from the place of the accident. Upon the verdict of the jury finding him guilty, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one year in the state's prison.Albert H. Krugmeier and Joseph Witmer, both of Appleton, for plaintiff in error.

Herman L. Ekern, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John A. Lonsdorf, Dist. Atty., of Appleton, for the State.

OWEN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

[1] Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of guilty because, in order to be guilty of the offense described in section 343.181, Stats., he must be charged with knowledge of the fact that he has caused injury to some one. He makes the contention here that he did not know that he had injured Beschta. His own testimony conclusively refutes that contention. He testified as follows:

“As I came along the street car going west, I passed the street car right close to the intersection. Too late to avoid the accident this man came across the street with his head down putting something in an envelope; he walked right into the side of my car, the front fender. I got excited. In the first place I didn't think I hurt the man. I thought I just brushed him aside, and got excited on top of that and kept on going.”

According to his own admissions, he knew that his automobile had come in contact with Beschta, going at a very high rate of speed. He had no right to assume that no injury resulted to Beschta by reason of such contact. It was his duty to stop and ascertain whether Beschta was injured.

[2] Error is also assigned because it is claimed that section 343.181 does not authorize imprisonment in the state's prison. That section provides that any person violating its provisions “shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a period of not less than three months, nor more than two years.” It will be noted that the provision is silent as to where the imprisonment shall be. This is the basis for the contention that the section does not authorize imprisonment in the state's prison. It does specifically provide, however, that one who violates the provisions “shall be guilty of a felony.” Section 353.31 provides that the term “felony,” when used in any statute, shall be construed to mean an offense for which the offender on conviction shall be liable by law to be punished by imprisonment in the state prison. This is a legislative definition of the term “felony.” When the Legislature provides that an offense shall constitute a felony, and authorizes imprisonment for a maximum of...