Dahlgren v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1916 |
| Citation | 163 Wis. 141,157 N.W. 531 |
| Parties | DAHLGREN v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Milwaukee County; A. C. Backus, Judge.
John Dahlgren was convicted of burglary, and he brings error. Writ of error dismissed, and conviction affirmed.Rubin, Fawcett & Dutcher, of Milwaukee (W. B. Rubin, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
W. C. Owen, Atty. Gen., Winfred C. Zabel, Dist. Atty., and Andrew Gilbertson, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for the State.
The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called “defendant,” was convicted under section 4410, Stats., of burglary of an office building on the 14th day of March, 1915, and sentenced to five years in the state prison at Waupun, and brings the case here by writ of error.
The complaint before the examining magistrate charged that the defendant did unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously break and enter an office building with intent to steal. No charge was made in this complaint of prior offenses. The defendant waived examination and was bound over. The district attorney filed an information against the defendant for the offense stated in the complaint before the examining magistrate, and further informed the court in said information that on the 12th day of July, 1899, the defendant was convicted in the district court (Fourth judicial district) in the county of Hennepin, Minn., of the crime of burglary and upon said offense sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison at Stillwater, Minn., for the term of five years, which conviction and sentence still remains of record and unreversed. And further informed the court that on the 12th day of July, 1899, the defendantwas convicted in the district court (Fourth judicial district) in the county of Hennepin, state of Minnesota, of the crime of burglary, and upon said conviction sentenced by said court to imprisonment in the state prison at Stillwater for the term of five years, said term to begin at the expiration of the term of confinement in said state prison to which the defendant theretofore and on said 12th day of July, 1899, had been sentenced, said cause being No. 6009 of the files and records of said court, which conviction and sentence still remains of record and unreversed. The learned counsel for defendant entered a plea in abatement to the effect that no examination had been had for the offense charged against the defendant in the information, the contention being that that part of the information relating to the convictions in Minnesota should have been stated in the complaint before the examining magistrate, and that no examination was ever had for the crime of which defendant was convicted. This contention involves the question as to whether or not the facts stated respecting former convictions in Minnesota is any part of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the instant case.
[1] In filing an information the district attorney is not confined to the crime stated in the complaint before the examining magistrate, but may file an information setting forth the crime committed according to the facts ascertained on such examination and from the written testimony taken thereon, whether it be the offense charged in the complaint on which the examination was had, or not. Section 4654, Stats. It is true that in the instant case the defendant waived examination and no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Kropf v. Gilbert
...on such examination, whether it be the offense charged in the complaint upon which the examination was had or not. Dahlgren v. State, 163 Wis. 141, 157 N. W. 531;Bianchi v. State, 169 Wis. 75, 171 N. W. 639;Faull v. State, 178 Wis. 66, 189 N. W. 274. Consequently the evidence on the prelimi......
-
State v. Burke
...e.g., Porath v. State, 90 Wis. 527, 534, 63 N.W. 1061 (1895); Secor v. State, 118 Wis. 621, 95 N.W. 942 (1903); Dahlgren v. State, 163 Wis. 141, 143, 157 N.W. 531 (1916); Mark v. State, 228 Wis. 377, 383-84, 280 N.W. 299 (1938); Whitaker v. State, 83 Wis.2d 368, 373, 265 N.W.2d 575 (1978); ......
-
State v. Watkins
...151 N.W.2d 157.11 Id. at page 478, 151 N.W.2d at page 169. Affirmed in Ramer v State (1968), Wis., 161 N.W.2d 209.12 Dahlgren v. State (1916), 163 Wis. 141, 157 N.W. 531; Watson v. State (1926), 190 Wis. 245, 247, 208 N.W. 897; Mundon v. State (1928), 196 Wis. 469, 471, 220 N.W. 650; State ......
-
State v. Martin
...to secure the punishment provided for in case of a second offense and [had to] be alleged in the information." Dahlgren v. State, 163 Wis. 141, 144, 157 N.W. 531 (1916). See also Paetz v. State, 129 Wis. 174, 177, 107 N.W. 1090 (1906); Ingalls v. State, 48 Wis. 647, 655, 4 N.W. 785 The repe......