Norwood v. State
| Decision Date | 16 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--508--CR,75--508--CR |
| Citation | 246 N.W.2d 801,74 Wis.2d 343 |
| Parties | Robert Junior NORWOOD, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant-in-Error. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Robert Junior Norwood, plaintiff in error (hereinafter defendant), was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, contrary to secs. 939.32 and 940.01, Stats., following a trial to the court. The defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of not more than seven years' imprisonment. His postconviction motions were denied. Writs of error issued to review the judgment of conviction and the order denying the defendant's postconviction motions.
Howard B. Eisenberg, State Public Defender, and Jack E. Schairer, Asst. State Public Defender (argued), on the briefs, for plaintiff-in-error.
Betty R. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen. (argued), with whom on the brief was Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., for defendant-in-error.
The defendant is alleged to have driven an automobile into the side of another automobile at a time when Jimmie (James) Johnson, the driver of the second car was in the process of entering the car. As a result of the contact between the two cars, Johnson was pinned between the door and the body frame of the car he was entering.
Robbie Queary, a witness for the state, testified that she was at a party at 2124 West Lloyd street in Milwaukee on the morning of October 7, 1972. It was a party by invitation. Johnson was invited to the party. The defendant was not invited. Queary observed the defendant at the party and also saw Johnson enter the premises. The defendant was asked to leave the party; a scuffle then broke out between the defendant and others at the party. She observed the defendant leave the party and run to his car. Johnson had already left and was getting into his car. Queary observed the defendant run his car into Johnson's car three consecutive times, pinning Johnson in the door, and then observed the defendant leave.
Johnson testified that when he arrived at the party a fight involving the defendant was taking place. Johnson, upon observing the fight, left the house to return to the car which he and his nephew had driven to the party. Upon reaching the car, Johnson opened the door on the driver's side and stood there lighting a cigarette. He remembers getting hit once and then remembers nothing further until he woke up in the hospital three or four days later. Johnson testified he had never seen the defendant before October 7, 1972, and that he had not fought with him at the party.
The third and final witness for the state was Adam Wojak, patrolman, Milwaukee Police Department. He testified that he responded to a call at 2124 West Lloyd street and upon arrival observed a green Buick on the sidewalk. The car had been struck on the driver's side and Johnson who appeared to be unconscious, was trapped between the door and the door post. Wojak called an ambulance; Johnson was cut from the vehicle and taken to the hospital. Later on that morning, October 7, 1972, he observed the car driven by the defendant. The front end was damaged on both sides and there were numerous splatters of blood on the hood.
Wojak further testified that he saw defendant later that morning at approximately 10:30 a.m. at the third district police station where defendant turned himself in; that he advised the defendant of his constitutional rights; and that the defendant stated that:
'. . . he did hit Mr. Johnson and his car, but he had only hit him once because he thought that Mr. Johnson was getting a gun from his vehicle and he wanted to stop him.'
Wojak testified that two days later, on October 9, 1972, in the district attorney's office, after again being advised of his constitutional rights, the defendant stated:
Norwood, the defendant, testified in his own behalf and as the only witness for the defense. He testified that he was thirty-five years old, had a limited grade-school education, was epileptic and had heart trouble. He was at the Lloyd street party, remembered getting jumped on and hit and the next thing he remembered was being home. He denied telling the officers he hit Johnson's car, but stated that he told them he had hit something because his car was bent. Norwood testified that he did not know Johnson, wasn't mad at him, did not remember striking him, and that he did not believe Johnson's testimony. He denied making the statement to Officer Wojak on October 7, 1972, and further denied making the latter statement in the office of the district attorney.
The defendant was arrested October 7, 1972. His trial was held August 26, 1974. Additional facts will be set forth when considering the issues presented for review, which are:
1. Was the defendant denied his right to a speedy trial?
2. Did the defendant knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial?
3. Were the two oral statements given by the defendant properly admitted into evidence at trial?
SPEEDY TRIAL.
The defendant claims that he was denied the right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the constitution of the United States and art. I, sec. 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution. Klopfer v. State of North Carolina (1967), 386 U.S. 213, 87 S.Ct. 988, 18 L.Ed.2d 1; State ex rel. Fredenberg v. Byrne (1963), 20 Wis.2d 504, 123 N.W.2d 305.
It is, therefore, necessary to set forth a chronology of the events commencing with the commission of the alleged crime and culminating with the defendant's conviction. Those events are summarized as follows:
October 7, 1972: Commission of the alleged crime of attempted first-degree murder at approximately 3:25 a.m. At approximately 10:30 a.m. the defendant turns himself in to the third district police station, makes a statement implicating himself to Officers Schoner and Wojak, and is placed in custody.
October 9, 1972: The defendant appears before the district attorney and makes a further implicating statement. The complaint is sworn out against the defendant. The defendant, represented by Attorney Marola, makes an initial appearance in branch 12 of the circuit court. Judge Coffey finds the complaint in order, finds probable cause to hold the defendant for further proceedings and sets bail. On the defendant's motion, the case is adjourned for preliminary examination to October 18, 1972. The case is assigned by lot to branch 4 of the county court.
October 18, 1972: Preliminary hearing held in branch 4 of the county court. Probable cause is found and the defendant bound over to circuit court for trial.
October 27, 1972: Information dated October 25, 1972, is filed in circuit court.
October 31, 1972: Arraignment in branch 11 of the circuit court. The defendant waives reading of the information and pleads not guilty. After denial of defense motions to reduce or modify bail, the defendant demands a speedy trial. Judge Steffe adjourns the case to January 29, 1973, for jury trial.
December 5, 1972: The court permits Attorney Marola to withdraw and appoints Attorney Styler to represent the defendant. Motions to reduce or modify bail are denied.
January 15, 1973: Case transferred by Chief Judge L. J. Foley to branch 14 of the circuit court for trial. The defendant appears in branch 14 of the circuit court and requests a physical and mental examination relative to his ability to stand trial. Judge L. J. Foley finds probable cause to believe that the defendant may be suffering from mental disease or defect, and orders that the defendant be sent to Central State Hospital for examination for a period not to exceed 60 days.
February 21, 1973: Central State Hospital report on the defendant dated February 20, 1973, received and filed with the circuit court.
February 26, 1973: Judge L. J. Foley, upon reviewing the Central State Hospital report, determines that further medical testimony is necessary and orders Dr. James Hurley to examine the report and the defendant. The case is continued to March 8, 1973, for hearing on mental competency.
March 8, 1973: Hearing held in branch 14 on the competency of the defendant to stand trial. Dr. Hurley testifies. Judge L. J. Foley finds the defendant not competent to participate in his own defense. The defendant is committed to Central State Hospital pursuant to sec. 971.14(5), Stats. All proceedings are stayed until such time as the defendant is found competent.
September 26, 1973: Court allows Attorney Styler to withdraw and appoints Attorney Goulee to represent the defendant.
October 5, 1973: The defendant files pro se motions for interpreter and for dismissal because of lack of speedy trial. Judge L. J. Foley sets hearing on those motions and hearing for receipt of further Central State Hospital reports for November 16, 1973.
November 16, 1973: Acting Chief Judge Cannon transfers case to Judge Sullivan. District attorney requests adjournment of case pending a supreme court decision (State ex rel. Haskins v. Dodge County Court (1974), 62 Wis.2d 250, 214 N.W.2d 575), which will affect this case. The defendant does not object. Judge Sullivan adjourns proceedings to December 7, 1973.
December 7, 1973: All parties agree to further adjournment of above proceedings to January 15, 1974.
March 19, 1974: Judge Sullivan hears the competency issue, finds the defendant competent to stand trial. The defendant requests assignment back to Judge L. J. Foley's court to hear the previous pro se motions. Judge Sullivan advises that he could probably give a trial date in early April, but upon consultation with Acting Chief Judge O'Connell, agrees to send the case back to Judge L. J. Foley.
March 20, 1974: Case referred from Judge L. J. Foley to Judge J. F. Foley, branch 7 of the circuit court. Judge J. F. Foley sets March 26, 1974, for bail evaluation, April 3, 1974, for motion hearing, and June 10, 1974, for jury trial.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Verhasselt
...v. State, supra, 75 Wis.2d at 352, 249 N.W.2d 593; Grennier v. State, supra, 70 Wis.2d at 210, 234 N.W.2d 316; Norwood v. State, 74 Wis.2d 343, 364, 246 N.W.2d 801 (1976); McAdoo v. State, 65 Wis.2d 596, 223 N.W.2d 521 (1974). On review, any conflicts in testimony regarding the circumstance......
-
Ciummei v. Com.
...Allard v. Helgemoe, 572 F.2d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 858, 99 S.Ct. 175, 58 L.Ed.2d 166 (1978); Norwood v. State, 74 Wis.2d 343, 360, 246 N.W.2d 801 (1976). It is suggested in some opinions that a higher competency should be demanded for a waiver of jury or a guilty plea, 1......
-
State v. Drogsvold
...v. Wedgeworth, 100 Wis.2d 514, 524-25, 302 N.W.2d 810, 816 (1981), approved the following description in Norwood v. State, 74 Wis.2d 343, 364-65, 246 N.W.2d 801, 812-13 (1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 949, 97 S.Ct. 1589, 51 L.Ed.2d 798 (1977), of voluntariness and the circumstances which aff......
-
State v. Agnello
...v. State, 75 Wis.2d 344, 352, 249 N.W.2d 593 (1977); Blaszke v. State, 69 Wis.2d 81, 86, 230 N.W.2d 133 (1975); Norwood v. State, 74 Wis.2d 343, 363, 246 N.W.2d 801 (1976); State v. Hernandez, 61 Wis.2d 253, 258, 212 N.W.2d 118 ¶64 In order to remain faithful to the doctrine of stare decisi......