Fifer v. State
| Decision Date | 12 January 1926 |
| Citation | 206 N.W. 861,189 Wis. 50 |
| Parties | FIFER v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.
Harry Fifer was convicted of assault and robbery, being armed with a dangerous weapon, and he brings error. Affirmed.Edward J. Burke, of Milwaukee, for plaintiff in error.
Herman L. Ekern, Atty. Gen., and Eugene Wengert, Dist. Atty., George A. Burns, Sp. Asst. Dist. Atty., and C. Stanley Perry, Asst. Dist. Atty., all of Milwaukee, for the State.
Harry Fifer, the plaintiff in error, Clarence Miller, and Anton Czerwinski were found guilty by the verdict of a jury of the crime of assault and robbery being armed with a dangerous weapon. John Tuchalski, a youth of about 16 years of age, was informed against, together with the persons above mentioned, and entered a plea of guilty.
[1] The conviction was largely based upon the testimony of Tuchalski, and it appears therefrom that, on the day of the commission of the crime, he had visited a pool hall located on the corner of First avenue and Hayes street, in the city of Milwaukee, and that he was there approached by one Pointek,who pointed a revolver at him, and by said Miller, who had a blackjack secreted in the sleeve of his overcoat, and was coerced to leave the hall and enter a waiting automobile driven by Czerwinski. Fifer was seated in the automobile when Tuchalski arrived. The automobile was driven first north on First avenue to Lincoln avenue; thence west on Lincoln avenue to Eighth avenue; thence south to the middle of the block between Arthur avenue and Harrison street, and was then turned back on Eighth avenue to Arthur avenue, where it turned the corner towards the east, and then stopped just east of the southeast corner of Arthur and Eighth avenues. Pointek and Miller left the automobile and entered the store of one Schneider, the complaining witness, and at the point of a revolver took from him $35 in money and a watch. During the robbery of the store, Czerwinski kept the engine of the machine running, and was in readiness to receive the two companions who had entered the store, and, while the actual robbery took place, Fifer was stationed at the street intersection as a lookout. Tuchalski remained in the automobile with Czerwinski, and claimed that he did not participate in the robbery. Here it must also be stated that, while proceeding to the scene of the robbery, the entire plan was devised and each party participating was assigned his duty. The car was then driven east on Arthur avenue to Seventh avenue; south on Seventh avenue to Cleveland street; east on Cleveland street to First avenue; thence south on First avenue to Oklahoma avenue; and thence west to Fifteenth avenue, where it was brought to a stop and the proceeds of the robbery distributed among the participants, Tuchalski claiming that he neither was offered nor received any of the proceeds. Thereafter the automobile was turned towards the city, in the locality of Tuchalski's home, where he alighted and proceeded homeward. Upon alighting from the machine, Tuchalski saw that the automobile in question was a Chevrolet touring car.
Immediately after the robbery, a report of the same was made to a police officer, who was in the immediate vicinity, and he testified that, just before receiving the report, he saw a Chevrolet car passing east on Arthur avenue between Seventh and Eighth avenues.
The complaining witness testified that the holdup took place between 8:45 and 9 o'clock in the evening, and that Pointek, who was in court and testified as a witness on the trial, looked like the man who had the revolver, and who participated in the holdup, but he was unable to definitely identify him.
About one week after this affair, Tuchalski was taken into custody and lodged in the police station, at which time he denied having any knowledge of the robbery, but about 3 hours later, being told that the police department had received knowledge from some one that he was implicated, he volunteered a complete statement of what had transpired.
All of the defendants charged, excepting Tuchalski, relied for a defense upon an alibi. To prove his alibi, Fifer testified that on the night in question he accompanied his brother to the office of Dr. Dempsey, a dentist, and that he returned to his home at about 8:30 o'clock that evening, where he remained during the night. Dr. Dempsey...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stockwell v. State
...'. . . 'The court then referred to other cases which upheld convictions where the defendant acted as a lookout. Fifer v. State (1926), 189 Wis. 50, 206 N.W. 861; State v. Kuick (1948), 252 Wis. 595, 32 N.W.2d 344. In these cases, credible testimony placed the defendants at the scene of the ......
-
Taylor v. State, S
.... . .' The court then referred to other cases which upheld convictions where the defendant acted as a lookout. Fifer v. State (1926), 189 Wis. 50, 206 N.W. 861; State v. Kuick (1948), 252 Wis. 595, 32 N.W.2d 344. In these cases, credible testimony placed the defendants at the scene of the c......
-
Carter v. State
... ... 939.05 which provides in subsection (2)(b) one is concerned in the commission of a crime when he 'intentionally aids and abets the commission of it.' ... This rule has been well settled for many years in Wisconsin. In Fifer v. State (1926), 189 Wis. 50, 206 N.W. 861, the defendant was convicted of armed robbery. Fifer's participation consisted of acting as a lookout at a nearby intersection while his two accomplicies entered and robbed the store. Like a drama on the stage, each party was engaged in the general ... ...