Jung v. State, S

Decision Date03 October 1972
Docket NumberNo. S,S
Citation55 Wis.2d 714,201 N.W.2d 58
PartiesPhillip Harlan JUNG, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. tate 87.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

Anthony K. Karpowitz. Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, Criminal Appellant Division, Milwaukee, for plaintiff in error.

Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Robert D. Martinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for defendant in error.

BEILFUSS, Justice.

The statute under which the defendant is charged is, in part, as follows:

'947.15 Contributing to the delinquency of children; neglect; neglect contributing to death. (1) The following persons may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year in county jail or both, and if death is a consequence may be find $1,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years:

(a) Any person 18 or older who intentionally encourages or contributes to the delinquency or neglect of any child; or

'(b) . . .

'(2) An act or failure to act contributes to the delinquency or neglect of a child, although the child does not actually decome neglected or delinquent, if the natural and probable consequences of that act or failure to act would be to cause the child to become delinquent or neglected.

The statutory definition of a 'delinquent' child appears in sec. 48.12:

'Jurisdiction over children alleged to de delinquent. The juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction except as provided in ss. 48.17 and 48.18 over any child 2 who is alleged to be delinquent because:

'(1) He has violated any state law or any county, town, or municipal ordinance; or

'(2) He is habitually truant from school or home; or

'(3) He is uncontrolled by his parent, grardian or legal custodian by reason of being wayward or habitually disobedient; or

'(4) He habitually so deports himself as to injure or endanger the morals or health of himself or others.'

The complaint upon which the defendant was charged and tried provided in part:

'. . . the abovenamed defendant on and between the 15th day of November A.D., 1970 thru the 15th day of December A.D., 1970, in the County of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, did contribute to the delinquency of the complainant's daughter, Nadara _ _, age 15, date of birth, 7--6--55 in that she stayed at the defendant's apartment, 730 North 23rd Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for apprdximately 30 days, contrary to Section 947.15 of the statutes, . . .

'Complainant further states that her information is based upon a statement by her daughter Nadara _ _, who states that she ran away from home in September, 1970 and that in mid November, 1970 she moved into the defendant's apartment, 730 North 23rd Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin and stayed there for approximately one month. Further on personal knowledge that Nadara is 15 years old, date of birth 7--6--55.'

On this appeal the defendant contends: (1) That the complaint is insufficient; (2) that the evidence is insufficient; (3) that the court erred in allowing the minor to testify as to sexual relations; and (4) that the statute is unconstitutional as being vague.

A resume of the facts as they appear in the record is as follows:

The complaint, in substance, charges that the defendant contributed to the delinquency or the complainant's daughter, Nadara _ _, age fifteen, in that Nadara stayed at the defendant's apartment at 730 North 23rd Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for approximately thirty days in violation of sec. 947.15(1)(a), Stats. The complainant, Beatrice Gartmann, is the mother of Nadara _ _. Nadara was also known as Chequela (Candy) Johnstad. She will hereinafter be referred to as Nadara.

In the latter part of September, 1970, Nadara ran away from her home located at 2311 Twelfth Avenue, South Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Her mother reported her missing to the South Milwaukee police. The mother did not give Nadara permission to leave home, and Nadara did not return home until December 18, 1970. It appears that Nabara was a runaway from home, truant and wayward from September 25, 1970 until December 18, 1970.

Nadara met the defendant in October, 1970, at two downtown bars or bars and restaurants on two different occasions before she stayed at his apartment. The testimony is conflicting as to what conversations actually took place between the parties at these two different places. Especially as to who asked who about staying at the defendant's apartment. It is clear that at sometime during either or these meetings Nadara told the defendant that: (1) She did not have a place to stay; (2) that she was going to be working with Mr. Schmidt at Holiday Magic, which is a local cosmetic firm; (3) that falsely, her name was Candy Johnstad; (4) that falsely, she just moved down to Milwaukee from Eau Claire; and (5) that falsely, she was twenty-one years old. Nadara never told the defendant that: (1) She was really from South Milwaukee; (2) that she was a runaway; (3) her real age; and (4) her real name. Thereafter the defendant gave Nadara the address to his two-bedroom apartment which he shared with one Benjamin J. Keeley. The testimony conflicts as to the reasons why the address and offer to stay were given. Nadara testified that she never asked to stay at his apartment nor for his address. Instead, when he found out she was without a place he just gave her his address and told her that if she needed a place she could stay at his apartment. She went to his apartment in November, asked if she could syay, and he said yes. Nadara then stayed at the defendant's apartment on several occasions thereafter.

As to specifically when and exactly how long she stayed there the testimony is conflicting, but it was during the period when she was a runaway. The defendant asserts it was only twice for a period of a few days. In contrast, Nadara asserts she stated at the defendant's apartment a total of approximately thirty days at different times. During these stays they started getting involved and fought over her going out so much at night. She left on occasions because of these arguments and defendant always asked her to come back.

Over the defendant's objection, Nadara then testified that during the November-December period she had sexual intercourse with the defendant about fifteen times. The defendant denies having such acts with Nadara. Both Keeley and the defendant testified that at no time did the defendant have such contact with Nadara. Further, whenever there was contact it was merely platonic and his roommate, Keeley, was always there. Defendant testified that at all other times he was working at the Club Lido seven days a week from about 11:50 a.m., to the legal closing time for bars. His duties at the club were doorman, projectionist, collecting a admission charges, and checking I.D. cards to make sure minors did not get in.

The defendant also testified that during her second stay he dropped her off downtown one morning and at that time she told him she was not twenty-one but nineteen. His reactions were mixed, and he told her she could no longer stay at his place. He then called Keeley, told him her age and stated that Nadara could not stay these anymore. When he got home she was gone and he never saw her again until the trial. Nadara testified that before she ever stayed at the defendant's apartment she told him she was twenty-one. He said he did not believe her and then she said she was nineteen. He then said nothing. The defendant was thirty-nine years old, divorced, and the father or four children. He had a provious criminal record.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Flinn, s. CC888--CC890
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 2 d2 Julho d2 1974
    ...23 Utah 2d 365, 463 P.2d 806; State v. Friedlander, 141 Wash. 1, 250 P. 453; State v. Harris, 105 W.Va. 165, 141 S.E. 637; Jung v. State, 55 Wis.2d 714, 201 N.W.2d 58. At first blush, such overwhelming state precedent, including a decision from this Court, would seem to obviously control th......
  • Madison Metro. Sch. Dist. v. Circuit Court For Dane County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 14 d4 Julho d4 2011
    ...292 N.W.2d 835 (1980) (an adult contributed to the delinquency of a minor by furnishing alcohol to a 16–year–old girl); Jung v. State, 55 Wis.2d 714, 716–17, 201 N.W.2d 58 (1972) (an adult male contributed to the delinquency of a minor by allowing a 15–year–old girl to stay at his apartment......
  • State v. Williams, 00-3065-CR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 6 d4 Junho d4 2002
    ...involving sufficiency of the evidence in the context of a conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a child, Jung v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 714, 201 N.W.2d 58 (1972), is on point. In Jung, this court upheld a guilty verdict for contributing to the delinquency of a minor against a suffici......
  • State v. Cialkowski, 39691
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 27 d4 Março d4 1975
    ...against similar attacks in Brockmueller v. State, 86 Ariz. 82, 340 P.2d 992; State v. McKinley, 53 N.M. 106, 202 P.2d 964; Jung v. State, 55 Wis.2d 714, 201 N.W.2d 58. In numerous instances statutes which simply forbid acts tending to cause child delinquency have been upheld as sufficiently......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT