Lundstrum v. State
| Decision Date | 03 June 1909 |
| Citation | 140 Wis. 141,121 N.W. 883 |
| Parties | LUNDSTRUM v. STATE ET AL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Orren T. Williams, Judge.
Application by Alberta Lundstrum for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain a discharge from a commitment issued by an examining magistrate. The discharge was refused, and she brings error. Affirmed.Rubin & Zabel, for plaintiff in error.
A. C. Backus, Dist. Atty., and Carl Muskat, Asst. Dist. Atty. (A. C. Titus, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendants in error.
The plaintiff in error was arrested on a charge of murder in the first degree.A preliminary examination resulted in her being held for trial without bail. She seeks discharge from custody by habeas corpus proceedings on the ground that she was not legally committed. The following reasons are urged in support of her contention: (1) There was no legal preliminary examination because the complaining witness was not sworn thereat; (2) the evidence offered at such examination failed to establish the fact that a crime had been committed; and (3) an alleged confession of the accused was improperly received for the purpose of establishing the fact that a crime had been committed, and, excluding such alleged confession, the evidence offered was wholly inadequate to show the commission of a crime, or that there was probable cause to believe that the accused was guilty of an offense. In the proceeding before us this court can only examine the evidence sufficiently to discover whether there was any substantial ground for the exercise of judgment by the committing magistrate. If there was, relief must be denied. We cannot weigh the evidence to determine whether this court would reach the same or a different conclusion. State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 235, 85 N. W. 1046, 62 L. R. A. 700.
1. The contention that the plaintiff in error has not had a legal preliminary hearing because the complaining witness was not called to testify is untenable. This question was before this court in Emery v. State, 92 Wis. 146, 154, 65 N. W. 848, and it was there decided that the provision of section 4786, St. 1898, requiring the magistrate holding a preliminary examination to examine the complainant, was directory only, and that a legal examination could be had without calling such party as a witness. We feel no hesitancy in saying that the case was correctly decided.
2. We do not decide in this case that the fact that a crime has been committed may not be established on a preliminary examination solely by evidence of a confession of guilt by the accused of the crime with which he has been charged. Some courts hold that a confession is not sufficient in itself to show the commission of an offense. We entertain no doubt that a confession may be received and considered by the examining magistrate in connection with other evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whatley
...aspect, is as well within his jurisdiction when he decides wrong as when he decides right.” That rule was followed in Lundstrum v. State, 140 Wis. 141, 144, 121 N. W. 883, and Vejih v. Redford, 182 Wis. 311, 314, 196 N. W. 228, and affords the test to be applied to the evidence on this appe......
-
State ex rel. Kropf v. Gilbert
...v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 237, 85 N. W. 1046, 1057, 62 L. R. A. 700;Vejih v. Redford, 182 Wis. 311, 314, 196 N. W. 228;Lundstrum v. State, 140 Wis. 141, 144, 121 N. W. 883. [2] The counts in the complaint upon which the plaintiffs in error were held for trial charged them with criminally aid......
-
State ex rel. Tessler v. Kubiak
...aspect, is as well within his jurisdiction when he decides wrong as when he decides right.’ ‘That rule was followed in Lundstrum v. State, 140 Wis. 141, 144, 121 N.W. 883, and Vejih v. Redford, 182 Wis. 311, 314, 196 N.W. 228, and affords the test to be applied to the evidence on this appea......
-
State ex rel. Tessler v. Kubiak
...aspect, is as well within his jurisdiction when he decides wrong as when he decides right.' 'That rule was followed in Lundstrum v. State, 140 Wis. 141, 144, 121 N.W. 883, and Vejih v. Redford, 182 Wis. 311, 314, 196 N.W. 228, and affords the test to be applied to the evidence on this '* * ......