Siegel v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 1930 |
| Citation | 201 Wis. 12,229 N.W. 44 |
| Parties | SIEGEL v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Error to review a judgment of the Circuit Court for Waupaca County; Byron B. Park, Circuit Judge.
Guy R. Siegel was convicted of receiving stolen property, of making false statements to the Secretary of State in relation to the registration of automobiles, and of having automobiles in his possession on which the factory serial numbers had been defaced and altered, and he brings error. Affirmed.--[[[[By Editorial Staff.]
Action begun July 19, 1928. Judgment entered November 28, 1928.
Plaintiff in error and two others were tried together by a jury, and convicted and sentenced on fourteen counts charging them with receiving stolen property; twelve counts charging them with making false statements to the secretary of state in relation to the registration of automobiles; and fourteen counts charging them with having automobiles in their possession on which the factory serial numbers had been defaced and altered.F. Carney Nelligan, of Milwaukee, for plaintiff in error.
John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lloyd D. Smith, Dist. Atty., of Waupaca, for the State.
The only alleged error, which the plaintiff in error is entitled to have reviewed at this time, is in relation to the form of the verdict which was submitted to the jury. Upon the close of the testimony the court submitted that form to the attorneys for all parties. It began as follows:
“We, the jury in the above entitled action, for our verdict herein find as follows:
As to the first count in the information charging the defendants with having received and concealed stolen property, to wit, the automobile of J. H. Weyher, as follows:
The defendant, Guy R. Siegel,______guilty.
The defendant, E. H. Vincent,______guilty.
The defendant, Earl Meating,______guilty.”
The length of the line indicating the blank space preceding the word “guilty” was at least 15/16 of an inch in each instance. The same form was followed throughout the balance of the verdict as to each of the remaining thirty-seven counts, and each defendant. None of the attorneys for the defendants objected to the form of the verdict, and their only request was that there be also submitted a general verdict of not guilty as to each defendant. Thereupon the court said: “I think the verdict proposed by the Court is sufficient to protect the defendants and with any explanation there can not be any chance for any error or mistake on the part of the jury.”
Subsequently, during the charge to the jury, which was delivered orally, and of which a typewritten copy was also handed to the jury, the court said:
After five hours' deliberation the jurors were called into the courtroom, and in open court the judge asked if they understood the verdict. The foreman said, “We do.” When the verdict was returned, the court read the verdict and asked whether all agreed to find each defendant guilty on each count, and the jury replied affirmatively.
[1][2] In view of the careful explanation by the court in its instructions to the jury as to the purpose of the blank spaces preceding the word “guilty” in the form for the verdict, and that the jury was to write in the word “not” in such of those spaces as to which they had any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant named, and also the care exercised by the court in receiving the verdict and not accepting it until the jurors replied, in answer to the judge's inquiry, that they found each defendant guilty as to each count, there was no error in submitting that form for verdict. There is no occasion to believe that any defendant was prejudiced by the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. State
...v. Mahoney (1928), 196 Wis. 113, 122, 219 N.W. 380; Brozosky v. State (1928), 197 Wis. 446, 449, 222 N.W. 311; Siegel v. State (1930), 201 Wis. 12, 16, 229 N.W. 44; State ex rel. Reynolds v. County Court (1960), 11 Wis.2d 512, 515, 105 N.W.2d 812; Weston v. State (1965), 28 Wis.2d 136, 146,......
-
State v. Vincent
...on the part of Siegel that its sufficiency was not challenged upon his appeal from the judgment of conviction to this court. Siegel v. State (Wis.) 229 N. W. 44. However, the relations of the defendants Vincent and Meating to these transactions are somewhat different, as they were simply in......
-
State v. Prihoda
...statute does not mandate a defendant's presence when a clerical error is corrected.15 ¶ 30. The defendant also relies on Siegel v. State, 201 Wis. 12, 229 N.W. 44 (1930). In Siegel, this court held that proceedings during which the circuit court restated the initial sentence in slightly dif......
-
Ex parte Levi
...517 see People v. Williams, 24 Cal.2d 848, 853, 151 P.2d 244; Staples v. Commonwealth, 140 Va. 583, 587, 125 S.E. 319; Siegel v. State, 201 Wis. 12, 17, 229 N.W. 44; cases collected in 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § A defendant has substantial rights at the time he is arraigned for judgment, be......