Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1967 |
| Citation | 148 N.W.2d 53,33 Wis.2d 682 |
| Parties | McKenzie DAVIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STAE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Philip L. Padden, Milwaukee, Herbert S. Bratt, Milwaukee, of counsel, for plaintiff in error.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., Madison, Hugh R. O'Connell, Dist. Atty., Robert E. Sutton, Asst. Dist. Atty., Milwaukee, for defendant in error.
Upon this appeal Mr. Davis argues that statements given by him were involuntarily induced at a time when he was without the benefit of counsel. The trial court took extensive testimony and determined that his admissions 'were freely made by him, without threats, inducement of promises, or coercion of any kind whatsoever.' The trial court also concluded that the defendant 'had a right to counsel, that the knew of such right and that he had been generally advised of such right.' We have carefully examined the record and find that the aforesaid conclusions are not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence and must therefore be affirmed. State v. Carter (1966), 33 Wis.2d 80, 90, 91, 146 N.W.2d 466.
Mr. Davis relies on Massiah v. United States (1964), 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246, to support his claim that he was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to counsel. In Massiah the accused was tricked or misled into confessing, but these factors are not present in the case at bar. See State ex rel. Goodchild v. Burke (1965), 27 Wis.2d 244, 133 N.W.2d 753.
The defendant also charges that there was a violation of due process under the doctrine of Phillips v. State (1966), 29 Wis.2d 521, 139 N.W.2d 41. The latter case related to so-called 'sew-up' confessions wherein an accused has been interrogated for a long period of time before being brought before a magistrate. In State v. Carter (1966), 33 Wis.2d 80, 97, 146 N.W.2d 466, this court held that the rule of Phillips would apply only to cases in which the trial commenced after the date of that decision, which was January 7, 1966. The trial in the case at bar occurred before that date, and hence the Phillips Case in inapplicable.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Burke
...degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, Davis v. State, 1967, 33 Wis.2d 682, 148 N.W.2d 53. Although a warrant for his arrest had been issued in January 1947 in Milwaukee County, the petitioner was not apprehended ......
-
United States ex rel. Chabonian v. Liek
...only when the accused has been tricked or misled into confessing in the absence of his attorney. See, for example, Davis v. State, 33 Wis.2d 682, 684, 148 N.W.2d 53 (1967). The rationale for thus holding Massiah to its facts was the last sentence of the "All that we hold is that the defenda......
-
State v. Chabonian
...was improperly admitted against defendant. The majority dismisses the Sixth Amendment challenge by citing this court's decision in Davis v. State, 10 which erroneously interprets Massiah as applicable only to situations involving police trickery and deception, and a Fifth Circuit Court of A......
-
Greenwald v. State
.... (), 27 Wis.2d 244, 265, 133 N.W.2d 753.2 (1966), 33 Wis.2d 80, 89--91, 146 N.W.2d 466, 471--472.3 See also Davis v. State (1967), 33 Wis.2d 682, 684, 148 N.W.2d 53.4 Miranda v. State of Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.5 Escobedo v. State of Illinois (1964), 378......