Crummel v. State, No. S
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERT W. HANSEN |
| Citation | 174 N.W.2d 517,46 Wis.2d 348 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. S |
| Parties | James Lee CRUMMEL, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. tate 135. |
Page 517
v.
STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error.
[46 Wis.2d 350] On August 31, 1967, a criminal warrant was issued for James Lee Crummel, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, charging him with two counts of sexual perversion and aggravated battery. On the same day he was arrested. On September 1, 1967, defendant was brought before the magistrate, bail was set and counsel appointed for him. On September 15, 1967, following a preliminary hearing, defendant was bound over to the circuit court for trial. On October 20, 1967, notice was given by the district attorney that defendant's confession would be offered in evidence at the trial. Defense counsel moved to suppress the confession and additionally to dismiss the action on the ground that the preliminary hearing had not been held within the time prescribed by sec. 954.05(1), Stats. Following a Goodchild 1 hearing, these motions
Page 518
were denied. On October 27, 1967, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charges of sexual perversion and the charge of aggravated battery. After determining that the plea was voluntary and [46 Wis.2d 351] that the defendant understood the consequences of a conviction of a sex crime, the trial court accepted the plea of guilty. On the finding of guilt, the defendant was ordered committed to the Department of Health and Social Services for a presentence examination, pursuant to sec. 959.15(2), Stat. The defendant was found to be in need of specialized treatment as a sex deviate and committed to the department for treatment on the two counts of sex perversion. Defendant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the charge of aggravated battery. A writ of error was issued on December 5, 1968, to review the judgment entered on December 27, 1967.Ralph J. Huiras, Port Washington, for plaintiff in error.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Betty R. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Walter J. Swietlik, Ozaukee County Dist. Atty., Port Washington, for defendant in error.
ROBERT W. HANSEN, Justice.
The defendant makes two claims in support of his argument that he should be relieved of his plea of guilty: one concerns the voluntariness of his confession, the other concerns the time limitation in sec. 954.05(1), Stats.
THE CONFESSION.
The defendant claims that the trial court erred in finding, following a Goodchild hearing, that his confession was admissible. The sequence of events leading up to the confession is as follows:
On August 28, 1967, at about 2 p.m., a fourteen-year-old boy was hitchhiking on West North Avenue in the city of Milwaukee. He was picked up by the defendant and driven to two different isolated areas in Ozaukee county where acts of sexual perversion were committed upon him by the defendant. Following the second act of perversion, the perpetrator beat the boy on and about the head. The boy, by then unconscious, was pushed off the top [46 Wis.2d 352] of a hill by the defendant. The defendant then left the scene. The next morning the boy was found at the foot of the hill and taken to the hospital where he was found to be suffering from skull fractures.
On August 31, 1967, a warrant was issued for defendant's arrest, charging him with two counts of sexual perversion and one of aggravated battery. At about 9 p.m. that evening, the defendant was arrested in a Brookfield residence by the chief of police of Mequon and one of his officers. The chief, Robert Milke, informed defendant he had a warrant for his arrest and informed him of his rights, as required by the Miranda decision. 2 The defendant stated that he was caring for a young boy at his home. At defendant's request, the police chief telephoned the boy's older brother. When the brother came to the home, the defendant was taken to the Brookfield police station where he was booked. No questions were asked concerning defendant's guilt of the sexual perversion and aggravated battery charges until the defendant asked, in fact insisted, that the chief do so. The defendant thereupon denied that he was involved in the perversions or the battery. The defendant was then taken to the Mequon police station, where he gave some additional background information about himself. He then started crying, and stated:
'I don't know why I did it. I need help. I have got to tell someone about what I did to the boy. I can't keep it inside of me.'
After again being advised of his rights under Miranda, he signed both a
Page 519
waiver and a confession, detailing the acts of perversion, his fear that the boy would relate these...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee, Appeal No. 2019AP221-CR
...under these circumstances? Only two cases appear to have analyzed a court's "good cause" finding: Selders and Crummel v. State , 46 Wis. 2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970).18 In 396 Wis.2d 162 Crummel , our supreme court held that WIS. STAT. § 970.03(2) ’s predecessor statute had been complied w......
-
People v. Connelly, No. 84SA270
...Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 Page 731 (Miss.1968); People v. Savage, 102 Ill.App.2d 477, 242 N.E.2d 446 (1968); Crummel v. State, 46 Wis.2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970) (the spontaneity of the declarations by defendant corroborates the voluntariness of the Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 29......
-
Wold v. State, No. S
...if not raised prior to the plea to the information. See Godard v. State (1972), 55 Wis.2d 189, 197 N.W.2d 811; Crummel v. State (1970), 46 Wis.2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517; Flowers v. State (1969), 43 Wis.2d 352, 168 N.W.2d 843; Logan v. State (1969), 43 Wis.2d 128, 168 N.W.2d Page 486 Wold conte......
-
State ex rel. Skinkis v. Treffert, No. 77-642
...question was not raised nor briefed by the parties. 6 See, Kelley v. State, 54 Wis.2d 475, 479, 195 N.W.2d 457 (1972); Crummel v. State, 46 Wis.2d 348, 355, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970); Pillsbury v. State, 31 Wis.2d 87, 94, 142 N.W.2d 187 (1966); State ex rel. La Follette v. Raskin, 30 Wis.2d 39,......
-
State v. Lee, Appeal No. 2019AP221-CR
...these circumstances? Only two cases appear to have analyzed a court's "good cause" finding: Selders and Crummel v. State , 46 Wis. 2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970).18 In 396 Wis.2d 162 Crummel , our supreme court held that WIS. STAT. § 970.03(2) ’s predecessor statute had been compli......
-
People v. Connelly, No. 84SA270
...Nevels v. State, 216 So.2d 529 Page 731 (Miss.1968); People v. Savage, 102 Ill.App.2d 477, 242 N.E.2d 446 (1968); Crummel v. State, 46 Wis.2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970) (the spontaneity of the declarations by defendant corroborates the voluntariness of the Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 29......
-
Wold v. State, No. S
...if not raised prior to the plea to the information. See Godard v. State (1972), 55 Wis.2d 189, 197 N.W.2d 811; Crummel v. State (1970), 46 Wis.2d 348, 174 N.W.2d 517; Flowers v. State (1969), 43 Wis.2d 352, 168 N.W.2d 843; Logan v. State (1969), 43 Wis.2d 128, 168 N.W.2d Page 486 Wold conte......
-
State ex rel. Skinkis v. Treffert, No. 77-642
...question was not raised nor briefed by the parties. 6 See, Kelley v. State, 54 Wis.2d 475, 479, 195 N.W.2d 457 (1972); Crummel v. State, 46 Wis.2d 348, 355, 174 N.W.2d 517 (1970); Pillsbury v. State, 31 Wis.2d 87, 94, 142 N.W.2d 187 (1966); State ex rel. La Follette v. Raskin, 30 Wis.2d 39,......