Meyers v. State
| Decision Date | 03 May 1927 |
| Citation | 213 N.W. 645,193 Wis. 126 |
| Parties | MEYERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Chippewa County Court; T. J. Connor, Judge.
Fred Meyers was convicted of having in his possession privately manufactured distilled intoxicating liquor, of manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and of possessing a still, and sentenced under the general repeater statute, and he brings error. Affirmed.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was convicted of having in his possession privately manufactured distilled intoxicating liquor, also of manufacturing intoxicating liquors and of possessing a still used for the distillation of alcoholic liquor, all in violation of law. He was charged with four prior convictions of the state prohibition law and with one prior conviction of the federal prohibition law. Defendant, before evidence was taken, in writing admitted the former convictions. Upon the trial he testified in his own behalf and upon cross-examination against objection admitted the former convictions. The state also introduced proof thereof. He was sentenced under the General Repeater Statute (St. 1925, § 359.14). To test the validity of his conviction and sentence he sued out a writ of error.John A. Cadigan, of Superior (Cadigan & Cadigan, of Superior, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
John W Reynolds, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harold E. Stafford, Dist. Atty., of Chippewa Falls, for the State.
[1] Defendant assigns as error proof of his former convictions after he had admitted them, relying upon the rule in Howard v. State, 139 Wis. 529, 121 N. W. 133. The state answers that it cannot be error to prove that which the statute requires to be alleged and proved. Section 165.01, subds. (6), (27), provides:
“The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove previous convictions of the accused for any violation of this act.”
Taken literally this requires proof, but proof of a fact is dispensed with when its existence is admitted. The law requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a conviction in a criminal case, but a plea of guilty dispenses with all proof. So the admission of the existence of a fact dispenses with proof thereof. It is not probable that the Legislature, by the use of the language “shall allege and prove,” intended to establish a rule contrary to that announced in Howard v. State, 139 Wis. 529, 121 N. W. 133. If former convictions are alleged and admitted, then they are proved within the meaning of the statute.
[2] But under the facts in this case there was no error in receiving the testimony of the defendant admitting, or the record evidence proving, former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Santillanes, 4760.
...of the phrase “one who violates any law of this state” as used in Sec. 1, and “offense” as employed in Sec. 9. In Meyers v. State, 193 Wis. 126, 213 N.W. 645, 646, it was decided that the terms “offense” and “violation” used in repeater statutes means conviction of an offense, the court say......
-
State v. Warbelton
...of that fact. The stipulation dispenses with the need for further proof of the fact and is presented to the jury. Meyers v. State, 193 Wis. 126, 127, 213 N.W. 645 (1927). 21. See State v. Villarreal, 153 Wis.2d 323, 330-31, 450 N.W.2d 519 (Ct.App.1989). In such a case, the defendant receive......
-
State v. Midell
...of the word 'offense' as used in a repeater statute means conviction. Faull v. State (1922), 178 Wis. 66, 189 N.W. 274; Meyers v. State (1927), 193 Wis. 126, 213 N.W. 645. Also such an application of the statutes is in conformance with the general and majority rule adopted in other jurisdic......
-
State v. Meyer
...section 359.14. The rule that prevails is stated in the case of Barry v. State, 1926, 190 Wis. 613, 209 N.W. 598; and Meyers v. State, 1927, 193 Wis. 126, 213 N.W. 645, and is that where a defendant has been convicted of a prior offense and is guilty of a transgression in a particular class......