City of Milwaukee v. Antczak
| Decision Date | 30 June 1964 |
| Citation | 24 Wis.2d 480,129 N.W.2d 125 |
| Parties | CITY OF MILWAUKEE, Respondent, v. Edward J. ANTCZAK, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Eisenberg & Kletzke, Milwaukee, Edwin A. Star, Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellant.
John J. Fleming, City Atty., Maurice L. Markey, Asst. City Atty., Milwaukee, for respondent.
A prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance is a civil action under sec. 66.12(1)(a), Stats., 1 and the only question on the instant appeal is whether there is any credible evidence to support the verdict of the jury. 1
The record reveals the following facts. On October 26, 1962, at approximately 10:50 p. m., the appellant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. The arresting officers testified that they first observed Antczak after his truck had been involved in a minor accident on South Chase avenue in the city of Milwaukee. They testified that he was swaying and unsteady on his feet; that his speech was quite slurred, and that they noticed a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. The appellant was taken to police headquarters, where he was given the usual tests. A urinalysis revealed that the alcohol content in his blood was 20/100 of one percent by weight. The standard coordination tests were also administered to him--he was asked to write his name, to touch his nose with his finger, to pick up coins, to walk a straight line, etc., and he was also given a verbal test. The officers testified that the only test he 'passed' was the one involving picking up coins. Appellant admitted having five small bottles of beer at a tavern prior to his arrest.
The appellant Antczak testified that on the day of his arrest he had been working with fiberglass, which made his eyes watery; that he drank warm beer because of a stomach condition, and that warm beer gives off a stronger odor than cold beer; that he swayed on his feet and could not negotiate the 'straight-line' test because he had shrapnel in one foot and glass in both feet as a result of his tour of duty in the armed forces; and that when he took the handwriting test, one of the officers was pulling on his arm. After testifying to the above reasons for his performance in the tests, he was asked the following questions on cross examination:
'
'
'
Defendant's counsel:
Prosecution:
The Court: 'All right, sustained.'
The arresting officers testified after observing the appellant at the trial that his speech was not then as slurred as it had been on the night of the arrest, and that he was not swaying as he had been on that night.
The appellant attacks the various coordination tests administered to him at police headquarters as being sham, designed to prejudice the jury, and of no value whatsoever. The record reveals that the urinalysis test showed 20/100 of one percent of alcohol in the appellant's bloodstream. Sec. 325.235(1)(c), Stats., provides as follows:
'The fact that the analysis shows that there was fifteen-hundredths of one per cent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood is prima facie evidence that he was under the influence of an intoxicant, but shall not, without corroborating physical evidence thereof, be sufficient upon which to find the person guilty of being under the influence of intoxicants.'
It is the appellant's position that the aforementioned tests are not sufficient 'corroborating evidence' to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kramsvogel
...v. Schantzen, 258 Wis. at 43, 44 N.W.2d 628; Milwaukee v. Bud, 18 Wis.2d 216, 218, 118 N.W.2d 123 (1962); Milwaukee v. Antczak, 24 Wis.2d 480, 481, 129 N.W.2d 125 (1964); Neenah v. Alsteen, 30 Wis.2d at 600-01, 142 N.W.2d 232; Milwaukee v. Horvath, 31 Wis.2d 490, 492, 143 N.W.2d 446, cert. ......
-
Cullen v. State
...held that the average citizen can properly express an opinion as to whether another person is inebriated. City of Milwaukee v. Antczak (1964), 24 Wis.2d 480, 484, 129 N.W.2d 125; Odya v. Quade (1958), 4 Wis.2d 63, 74, 90 N.W.2d 96; Kuroske v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1940), 234 Wis. 394, 404, 2......
-
State v. Flattum
...Kelly, 40 Wis.2d 136, 138, 161 N.W.2d 271 (1968); Milwaukee v. Bichel, 35 Wis.2d 66, 69, 150 N.W.2d 419 (1967); Milwaukee v. Antczak, 24 Wis.2d 480, 484, 129 N.W.2d 125 (1964). ...
-
City of Milwaukee v. Horvath
...is a civil action. * * *' See also: City of Neenah v. Alsteen (1966), 30 Wis.2d 596, 600, 142 N.W.2d 232; City of Milwaukee v. Antczak (1964), 24 Wis.2d 480, 481, 129 N.W.2d 125; City of Milwaukee v. Bub (1962), 18 Wis.2d 216, 218, 118 N.W.2d 123; State ex rel. Keefe v. Schmiege (1947), 251......