Perrugini v. State

• Decision Date: 13 January 1931
• Citation: 204 Wis. 69,234 N.W. 384
• Parties: PERRUGINI v. STATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

204 Wis. 69

234 N.W. 384

PERRUGINI

v.STATE.^a1

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 13, 1931.

Writ of Error to the Municipal Court for Kenosha County; Calvin Stewart, Municipal Judge.

Guy Perrugini was convicted of aiding and abetting in commission of robbery in which actual robber was armed with dangerous weapon, and also with robbing and stealing property involved, and he brings error.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Judgment and sentence vacated and set aside, with directions.

Action begun May 10, 1930; judgment and sentence July 23, 1930. The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was charged in the information with two offenses: First, aiding and abetting Finny Pontello and Alfred Schulz in the commission of a robbery, etc.; and second, together with Finny Pontello and Alfred Schulz, with robbing and stealing the property of one J. G. Niewrendowski, etc. In each count it was charged that Alfred Schulz was armed with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a revolver. The defendant in this case and one Luitze, together with Pontello and Schulz, were associates in the commission of a robbery in the city of Kenosha on May 5, 1930. The defendant and Luitze had separate examinations, separate trials, and separate appeals, but the facts are the same in each case. We do not find it necessary therefore to set out all of the facts which are fully stated in the case of Jasper Luitze, Plaintiff in Error, v. State of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error, 234 N. W. 382, decided herewith.

The several motions of the defendant in this case were denied, and the defendant sued out this writ of error to review the judgment.Frank S. Symmonds, of Kenosha, for plaintiff in error.

John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John P. McEvoy, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Kenosha, for the State.

ROSENBERRY, C. J.

In the case of Luitze v. State, decided herewith, the defendant in that case was charged only with aiding and abetting and found guilty upon that charge. In this case the defendant was charged, as already stated, with aiding and abetting and with the commission of the offense, and was found guilty upon both counts. For the reasons stated in the Luitze Case, the information did not charge that either offense was committed one of the parties being then and there armed with a dangerous weapon, because it failed to charge that the revolver was loaded. The questions of law raised in this case are the same as those in Luitze v. State, and this...