Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 1968 |
| Parties | Bolivar JONES, Jr., Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Patrick T. McMahon, Milwaukee, for plaintiff in error.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., Wm. A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hugh R. O'Connell, Dist. Atty., Milwaukee County, E. Michael McCann, Asst. Dist. Atty., Milwaukee County, for defendant in error.
The Court's opinion makes it clear that at all initial appearances after the Jones mandate (November 28, 1967, 154 N.W.2d 278), an accused shall, as a matter of public policy, be advised of his right to counsel and have counsel appointed by the court if he is indigent. We, however, did not expressly state that the defendant Jones was entitled to the rule set forth in the opinion. Such has been our practice in all cases wherein this Court has set aside an existing rule of law in favor of a new rule having prospective application only. Our practice of giving the benefit of the new rule to the party who litigates the question applies in this case. In this respect we adhere to the policy of Great Northern Ry. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co. (1932), 287 U.S. 358, 53 S.Ct. 145, 77 L.Ed. 360.
In footnote 6 of the Court's opinion, we made it clear that our holding that an accused is entitled to counsel at the initial appearance is subject to the 'harmless-error' rule. See also Worke v. Rudd rule. See also Wolke v. Rudd
We failed, however, to state reasons why the error in this case is harmless. The defendant's claim of prejudice is founded principally on the fact that his confinement without counsel prevented a timely investigation to search for alibi witnesses. His claim is:
'That there are and were several witnesses who were present in the tavern where affiant was arrested, and several witnesses in another tavern from which affiant had come to the tavern where he was arrested, who, if found, would have to testify that affiant was in their presence at the time of the commission of the burglary with which affiant is charged.'
This claim is wholly frivolous in view of defendant's testimony at trial. Therein he stated that he was continuously at Pat's Clubhouse from 5:30 p.m. until arrested sometime after 12:20 on the following morning.
This is wholly inconsistent with his present claim that he wished to produce witnesses who were with him in another tavern at approximately 12:20--the time of the burglary. In light of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holland v. State, 77-485-CR
...and new trial if the error was harmless. Allison v. State, 62 Wis.2d 14, 29, 214 N.W.2d 437, 445 (1974); Jones v. State, 37 Wis.2d 56, 69a-69b, 155 N.W.2d 571, 572 (1968). I believe the error as applied to this case was harmless and therefore Holland's conviction should be A review of the e......
-
State v. Tucker
...and his right to counsel. See WSA 970.01(1); Jones v. State, 37 Wis.2d 56, ----, 154 N.W.2d 278, 284-85 (1967), reh'g denied, 37 Wis.2d 56, 155 N.W.2d 571 (1968).5 As we noted earlier, the Court in Sanchez was concerned that the "perfunctory" recitation of the right to counsel and to remain......
-
Hayes v. State
...this error on appeal. See State v. Halverson (1966), 32 Wis.2d 503, 145 N.W.2d 739; Jones v. State (1967), 37 Wis.2d 56, 154 N.W.2d 278, 155 N.W.2d 571; Okershauser v. State (1908), 136 Wis. 111, 169 N.W. It was error for the county court at the preliminary examination to restrict the cross......
-
State v. Harrell
...49, 52.6 State v. Reppin, supra, footnote 1, at page 386, 151 N.W.2d 9.7 See Jones v. State (1967), 37 Wis.2d 56, 69, 154 N.W.2d 278, 155 N.W.2d 571; Sparkman v. State (1965), 27 Wis.2d 92, 98, 133 N.W.2d 776.8 American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice--Plea......