DeGutes v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1926 |
| Citation | 207 N.W. 948,189 Wis. 435 |
| Parties | DEGUTES v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Milwaukee County; George A. Shaughnessey, Judge.
Joseph Degutes was convicted of driving an automobile on a public street while intoxicated, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Plaintiff in error was found guilty of driving an automobile on the public streets of Milwaukee while intoxicated on September 21, 1925, and sentenced to imprisonment in the house of correction for the term of one year. The judgment prohibited the plaintiff in error from driving an automobile for one year. The information alleged, and the proof established, the fact that plaintiff in error had been found guilty of driving an automobile while intoxicated in March, 1922, and in March, 1923, and sentenced to imprisonment for such offenses.Fawcett & Dutcher, of Milwaukee (Arnold J. Ansfield, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
H. L. Ekern, Atty. Gen., and Eugene Wengert, Dist. Atty., and C. Stanley Perry, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for the State.
[1] When the statutes relating to the punishment of those who operate automobiles while intoxicated are viewed in the light of their history, there is no doubt of the legislative intent, even though there is an apparent conflict between sections 85.22 and 343.182 of the Statutes.
Section 85.22 of the Statutes is a part of the chapter which covers the entire subject of the law of the road, prescribing the duties of a traveler upon our highways. Originally it had no provision as to drunken drivers. It fixes the penalties that are imposed upon those who violated the law of the road. By chapter 516 of the Laws of 1907 the Legislature provided for additional punishment by way of a fine or imprisonment, or both, for “any person convicted of a second or subsequent violation” of the statutes with reference to frightening horses upon the highway.
It was not until the passage of chapter 600, Laws of 1911, that the law of the road was so amended as to prohibit intoxicated persons from driving automobiles upon the public highway. Chapter 600, Laws of 1911, did not impose any specific penalty for driving automobiles while intoxicated. But, by incorporating this provision into the statutes relating to the law of the road, intoxicated drivers were made subject to the same penalties imposed on those who violated any other provision of the law of the road.
Chapter 317, Laws of 1915, especially excepted drunken drivers from the penalty provided for other violators of the law of the road, and fixed a much more severe penalty for this particular violation of the law of the road. But this special penalty for drunken drivers was still retained as a part of the penalties imposed by the chapter relating to the law of the road.
This statute remained in this form until the bill to revise the chapter relating to the law of the road, prepared by the revisor of statutes, was introduced at the session of 1923, which became chapter 108, Laws of 1923. In the revisor's bill the provision of the penalty section of the law of the road relating to the punishment of those who drive automobiles while intoxicated was transferred to section 4416b (now section 343.182) of the Statutes, under the section heading “drunken auto driver.” Chapter 108, Laws of 1923, omitted from section 85.22 of the Statutes the words “except as hereinafter provided in case of intoxicated persons,” which had been inserted in 1915 when the statute which is now section 343.182 of the statutes was first enacted. The revisor's note states that the last two sentences of section 1636--54 (now section 85.22) of the Statutes has been transferred to sections 4416a and 4416b of the Statutes, and that “the balance of the section is rewritten to make it cover the whole chapter unless other penalties be specified for particular sections.” Other penalties were specified for the particular section relating to the “drunken auto driver.”
The Legislature, as a part of the general law of the road, still prohibits a person under the influence of liquor from driving an automobile. Under the general penalty section, section 85.22 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myers
... ... Testimony as to behavior and breath odor ... such as the state's witnesses attributed to the defendant ... in this case is considered sufficient evidence of ... intoxication. State v. Winberg, 196 Minn. 135, 264 N.W. 578; ... Smith v. State, 124 Neb. 587, 247 N.W. 421; Degutes v. State, ... 189 Wis. 435, 207 N.W. 948; State v. Graham, 176 Minn. 164, ... 222 N.W. 909 ... Since the ... evidence was sufficient for the submission of the case to the ... jury it was for the jury to evaluate the conflicting ... testimony and determine where the truth ... ...
-
State ex rel. Martin v. Ekern
...should apply the rule that specific provisions of a statute should prevail over general provisions upon the same subject. Degutes v. State, 189 Wis. 435, 207 N.W. 948;Wisconsin Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Ft. Atkinson, 193 Wis. 232, 213 N.W. 873, 52 A.L.R. 1033. The rule in our opinion is......
-
Shorter v. State
...he was staggering and his speech was thick was held sufficient to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated. Degutes v. State, 1926, 189 Wis. 435, 207 N.W. 948. Also, evidence that the accused was unsteady on his feet; that his breath smelled of alcohol; that he talked with a thick......
-
Broderick v. State
...he was staggering and his speech was thick was held sufficient to sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated. Degutes v. State (1926), 189 Wis. 435, 207 N.W. 948. Also, evidence that the accused was unsteady on his feet; that his breath smelled of alcohol; that he talked with a thic......