Le Fevre v. Goodland
| Decision Date | 16 October 1945 |
| Citation | 19 N.W.2d 884,247 Wis. 512 |
| Parties | LE FEVRE v. GOODLAND et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; Alvin C. Reis, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Action commenced in the circuit court in the name of the State of Wisconsin on the relation of Frank B. LeFevre against the defendants, Walter S. Goodland,-Governor of Wisconsin,-and A. W. Bayley,-Director of the State Department of Public Welfare,-as a commission under and pursuant to sec. 285.05, Stats., to have judgment setting aside the commission's decision and order denying LeFevre's petition for an award of compensation under sec. 285.05, Stats., as relief to him as an innocent person convicted of a crime. Defendants demurred to the complaint on the grounds (1) that LeFevre did not have legal capacity to sue for the reason that it appears upon the face of the complaint that he has no right to maintain the action in the name of the state; and (2) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court ordered that the demurrer be sustained and that the action be dismissed; and upon the entry of judgment accordingly LeFevre appealed.
John E. O'Brien, of Fond du Lac, for appellant.
John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., and William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In June 1942 Frank B. LeFevre, upon a trial by jury in the circuit court for Fond du Lac county, was found guilty and convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Judgment was entered accordingly and upon an appeal this court reversed the judgment and directed the discharge of LeFevre from custody (LeFevre v. State, 242 Wis. 416, 8 N.W.2d 288); and he was released accordingly. Thereafter he applied to the defendants, as the commission for the relief of innocent convicts pursuant to sec. 285.05, Stats., and his petition was denied by the commission upon its finding that ‘it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Frank B. LeFevre was innocent of the crime for which he suffered imprisonment.’ In view of that finding the commission's denial of compensation to LeFevre under sec. 285.05, Stats., cannot be set aside or the payment of compensation ordered in the absence of proof in the record of the proceedings before the commission that compels the conclusion that the commission erred as a matter of law in making that finding.
Subd. (2) of sec. 285.05 authorizes the filing of a petition thereunder by ‘any person who * * * shall serve a term of imprisonment under conviction for a crime against the state, of which crime he claims to be innocent’, or ‘who has been pardoned on the ground of innocence and whose imprisonment shall thereby be shortened.’ LeFevre is not in either of these two classes. He has neither served ‘a term of imprisonment’ under a judgment of conviction, nor has he been pardoned on the ground of innocence and his imprisonment thereby shortened. Under subd. (4) of sec. 285.05, Stats., compensation can be ordered only ‘If the commission shall find that the petitioner was innocent and that he did not by his act or failure to act contribute to bring about the conviction and imprisonment for which he seeks compensation * * *.’ And in subd. (3) of sec. 285.05, Stats., it is provided that ‘After hearing the evidence on the petition, the commission shall find either that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner was innocent of the crime for which he suffered imprisonment, or that it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he was innocent.’
In relation to LeFevre the commission did not find ‘that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner was innocent of the crime.’ Instead, and expressly and unequivocally to the contrary, there is the commission's finding that ‘it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Frank B. LeFevre was innocent of the crime for which he suffered imprisonment.’ In view of that finding the commission obviously could not consistently find ‘that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yanta v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
...that remedy is exclusive. State ex rel. Russell v. Board of Appeals (1947), 250 Wis. 394, 397, 27 N.W.2d 378; LeFevre v. Goodland (1945), 247 Wis. 512, 516--517, 19 N.W.2d 884. Where the law gives a new remedy to meet a new situation, the remedy provided by the law is exclusive. In re Jenes......
-
Ross v. Ebert, 8
...remedy is exclusive. State ex rel. Russell v. Board of Appeals, 1947, 250 Wis. 394, 397, 27 N.W.2d 378; LeFevre v. Goodland, 1943, 247 Wis. 512, 516-517, 19 N.W.2d 884, 161 A.L.R. 342. Where the law gives a new remedy to meet a new situation, the remedy provided by the law is exclusive. In ......
-
Turnpaugh v. State Claims Bd.
...here is not whether the Claims Board improperly weighed the evidence before it. Thus, the Claims Board's reliance on Le Fevre v. Goodland, 247 Wis. 512, 19 N.W.2d 884 (1945), is misplaced. [342 Wis.2d 191]¶ 8 The jury found Le Fevre guilty of first-degree murder. Le Fevre v. State, 242 Wis.......
-
State v. Dohlman
...i]t is not necessarily a finding that the accused is innocent" for purposes of a wrongful imprisonment claim); Le Fevre v. Goodland, 247 Wis. 512, 19 N.W.2d 884, 885 (1945) (finding a determination that the state's evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable ......