Madkins v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. S,S |
| Citation | 50 Wis.2d 347,184 N.W.2d 144 |
| Parties | George F. MADKINS, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. tate 24. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
George F. Madkins, the plaintiff in error (hereinafter 'defendant'), was found guilty by a jury of attempted uttering of a forged check and sentenced to prison for an indeterminate term up to five years. His motions after trial for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were denied.
A writ of error to review the judgment of conviction was timely issued.
The defendant was arrested on November 9, 1968, at the Kroger Food Store, 324 West North avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. On that evening at about 7:30 p.m., the defendant entered Lena's Big Value Store, 328 West North avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and attempted to cash a check in the amount of $84.30. Mr. Bezelee Martin, the manager of Lena's Big Value Store, testified that the defendant approached him in the store and asked if he could cash his payroll check. Mr. Martin said he could, and the defendant then, in the presence of Mr. Martin, endorsed the reverse side of the check with the name William Preston, Jr. The defendant also wrote his address on the back of the check--2104 North 5th street. He then gave Martin the Social Security card of William Preston, Jr., as identification. On this card the address was North 15th street, not North 5th street. Martin pointed out this error to the defendant; and the defendant took the check back and corrected the error. Martin then told the defendant he would have to make a five-dollar purchase before the check could be cashed.
The defendant left the check with Martin and began shopping for five-dollars' worth of merchandise. Meanwhile, Martin began comparing the check with other bad checks in the store's file. He discovered that the checkwriter number on this check matched the number on a previous bad check in the store's file. He sent for a Mr. Eugene Wade, a private security guard from the Kroger store nearby. When the defendant returned to the check-out counter, he was taken to the security office of the Kroger store. When questioned about the check, the defendant told Martin that 'some fellow gave him the check and told him it was pay day for him and pay day for me, you know.'
The police were called and shortly thereafter Officers Simerlein and Lutz arrived at the Kroger store and advised the defendant of his rights regarding interrogation. According to Simerlein, he said he understood his rights. Simerlein testified that the defendant admitted that he signed the name of William Preston, Jr., on the back of the check. Officer Simerlein found 20 checks in the defendant's coat pocket which were from the same corporation as the one the defendant had attempted to cash. Simerlein further testified that as he and Officer Lutz were taking the defendant to the station, the defendant asked them to pull over to the curb because he had a further statement to make. They did, and the defendant said that if they would release him, he would cooperate in helping them 'break a forged check ring' in Milwaukee. This offer was rejected, and the defendant then demanded that he be allowed to call his attorney. He was told he could call his attorney as soon as they got to the police station. However, when they did arrive, and the defendant was offered the use of a telephone, he declined to make the call.
The defendant next talked to Detective William Vogel who said that he also advised the defendant of his constitutional rights. Vogel testified that the defendant told him also that he had forged the check and attempted to pass it.
At trial, the defendant's story was that he found the check, completely made out and endorsed, in a wallet on a shelf in the store. He admitted proffering it to the manager, but denied endorsing any name on it. The defendant further contends that he continually requested and was refused the right to call his attorney. He also denied that he was advised at any time of his constitutional rights. Finally, the defendant denied making any of the incriminating statements attributed to him by the officers.
George F. Madkins, pro se.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Madison, E. Michael McCann, Dist. Atty., Henry H. Conti, Asst. Dist. Atty. of Milwaukee County, Milwaukee, for defendant in error.
The appeal raises these two issues:
(1) Where the incriminating statements made by the defendant properly admitted into evidence; and
(2) Was the defendant denied effective assistance of counsel?
Admissibility of Statements.
Officer Simerlein testified that the defendant admitted signing a name not his own on the back of the check. The jury was not allowed to hear this testimony until the trial court conducted a Goodchild 1 hearing out of the jury's presence. At that hearing, Officer Simerlein testified that he gave the defendant a Miranda 2 warning in the following words:
Officer Lutz, who was present when this warning was given, was asked to repeat what he heard Simerlein say to the defendant. He testified as follows:
'He told Mr. Madkins that he had the right go remain silent, that he had a right to an attorney to be present while he was being interrogated, also that if he could not afford an attorney one would be appointed for him, and he could stop answering questions any time he so desired.'
It will be noted that Lutz's version of Simerlein's warning does not contain any mention of the fact that Simerlein warned the defendant that anything he said could be used against him in court.
The defendant contends that Officer Lutz's inability to parrot verbatim the warning which Simerlein gave is proof that no warning was in fact ever given. We do not agree with this contention. Officer Lutz's testimony was given in support of the fact that defendant did receive a warning of his constitutional rights from Officer Simerlein, a fact defendant denied at all times. The credibility of Officer Lutz's testimony was a question for determination by the trial court.
The defendant's own credibility was brought into question when, in response to an inquiry by the district attorney, he acknowledged that he had been convicted of crimes at least six times that he could remember.
The trial court concluded that the defendant had been adequately apprised of his constitutional rights against self-in-crimination and that the statement made to Officer Simerlein was made voluntarily and was not the result of coercion. We think the statement was properly admitted into evidence for the following reasons: (1) The trial court was able to observe the conduct and demeanor of all three witnesses; (2) Simerlein, who gave the Miranda warning, was a much more reliable source as to its contents than was Lutz who only overheard it; and (3) the credibility of the defendant was seriously impaired by his admission of many prior criminal convictions.
Detective Vogel testified that the defendant admitted to him that he had signed a false name on the back of the check. The voluntariness and consequent admissibility...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phillips
...weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Pires, 55 Wis.2d 597, 602-03, 201 N.W.2d 153 (1972); Madkins v. State, 50 Wis.2d 347, 184 N.W.2d 144 (1971); State v. Johnson, 177 Wis.2d 224, 230-31, 501 N.W.2d 876 (Ct.App.1993). The circuit court here found more credible the te......
-
State v. R.M.
...254, reh'g denied, 250 Ind. 625, 238 N.E.2d 458 (1968); Lloyd v. State, 223 Tenn. 1, 440 S.W.2d 797 (Tenn.1969); Madkins v. State, 50 Wis.2d 347, 184 N.W.2d 144 (1971). The majority states that there is evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that the confession was not vol......
-
State v. Pires
...to the voluntariness of defendant's incriminating statements is a question for determination by the trial court. Madkins v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 347, 184 N.W.2d 144. Also, we have held that when a trial court has made detailed findings of fact in connection with a confession, review of e......
-
Triplett v. State
...3, 21 Wis.2d at page 317, 124 N.W.2d 47, 128 N.W.2d 645, and State v. Hunt (1972), 53 Wis.2d 734, 193 N.W.2d 858.5 Madkins v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 347, 352, 184 N.W.2d 144.6 Id. at page 352, 184 N.W.2d at page 147.7 Bosket v. State (1972), 55 Wis.2d 121, 124, 125, 197 N.W.2d 767, 768, th......