Lawrence v. State

• Decision Date: 30 November 1880
• Parties: LAWRENCE and another v. THE STATE
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

7 N.W. 343

50 Wis. 507

LAWRENCE and another v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Wisconsin

November 30, 1880

Argued November 15, 1880

ERROR to the Circuit Court for Racine County.

Judgment affirmed.

The cause was submitted on the brief of S. & A. S. Ritchie for the plaintiff in error, and that of the Attorney General for the state.

OPINION

WILLIAM P. LYON, J.

An information against the plaintiffs in error was filed in the circuit court of Racine county, charging them with the crime of burglary. The dwelling-house which it is charged they broke and entered, and a portion of the property which it is charged they stole therein, are alleged in the information to have been the property of John T. Fish. The plaintiffs in error were tried for the offense charged in the information, and convicted, and each was sentenced to four years' imprisonment in the state prison. They have brought the case to this court by writ of error, and the only error alleged as ground for reversal is, that, at the request of the district attorney, the said John T. Fish (who is an attorney-at-law) was permitted, against the objection of the plaintiffs in error, to assist the district attorney on the trial. He examined the witnesses for the state, and argued the case to the jury. The reason assigned by the district attorney for desiring the assistance of Mr. Fish was, that the preliminary examination of the accused was conducted by him. The ground of the objection was, that Mr. Fish is named in the information as the owner of the dwelling-house alleged to have been broken and entered by the plaintiffs in error and of a portion of the property alleged to have been stolen by them therefrom.

The power of the trial court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to permit other counsel to assist the district attorney in prosecutions for crimes, is not questioned by the learned counsel for plaintiffs in error. But it is claimed that the assistant must have no interest in the prosecution and that if a counsel having such interest be allowed to assist therein against the objection of the accused, and a conviction follows, the judgment should be reversed. Cases are cited, notably Michigan cases, which hold this rule. But on this record we are not called to any extended examination of this question, or any discussion or determination of it for the reason that the record fails to show that Mr. Fish had any pecuniary or other special...