Smith v. State
| Citation | 69 Wis.2d 297,230 N.W.2d 858 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. S,S |
| Parties | Joseph Gerard SMITH, Plaintiff-in-Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant-in-Error. tate 42. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Howard B. Eisenberg, State Public Defender, Madison, for plaintiff-in-error.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., Wm. L. Gansner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for defendant-in-error.
The question raised is, was there sufficient evidence adduced at trial to prove the defendant guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt? We conclude there was.
The plaintiff in error, Joseph Gerard Smith (hereinafter 'defendant'), was found guilty of first degree murder following a jury trial and was sentenced to life imprisonment as required by sec. 940.01, Stats. A writ of error was taken to review the judgment of conviction and the only ground alleged to require a reversal of the judgment and the granting of a new trial is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury finding of the necessary intent to kill.
This action was commenced by the issuance of a criminal complaint on October 19, 1973, charging the defendant with the murder of Alvin Baumann at the Baumann home in the town of Plymouth, Sheboygan county, on October 10, 1973. The trial was held in January of 1974.
The defendant was aged 16 years at the time of his arrest and lived in a group home for boys. On October 8, 1973, the defendant met two friends and arranged with one of them to leave and go to Florida; however, the friend changed his mind and he then asked the other friend to drive him out to the country to a cabin which was owned by the father of an acquaintance. After obtaining some food, the defendant was driven out to the cabin and on the way asked one of the friends if he could sneak a pistol or shotgun from his house for the defendant to use to hunt game around the cabin, but this was not done. The defendant was left alone at the cabin and remained until mid-morning of October 10, 1973. At that time, while sitting on the porch, a car drove up and the occupants engaged him in conversation, saying they knew the owner of the cabin. When they left, the defendant decided to leave the cabin and walk to his grandmother's house. He walked through the woods along an abandoned railroad track bed until he came upon Camp Evelyn, a Girl Scout camp where Mr. Baumann lived in a house with his wife and worked as caretaker. The defendant looked around the premises; saw Mr. Baumann and asked him for a drink. Mr. Baumann explained that the plumbing in the house was not working and then went into the house and got a cup and gave it to the defendant to use in getting a drink from an outdoor spigot.
The defendant walked away from the camp and noticed a jeep parked on the premises. He waited in a stand of pine trees for one to two hours, trying to decide whether to continue walking or return to the camp and steal the jeep. He decided to steal the jeep, food and money. When he looked into the jeep he noticed the keys in the ignition and a double-barrel shotgun in the vehicle. He took the shotgun out of the jeep, opened the breach and found a shell in each barrel. He then went into the Baumann home, intending to steal food and money. Mr. Baumann was sitting in a chair in front of the television. The defendant told Mr. Baumann he was taking the jeep and, as he testified, 'could have' asked for money. Mr. Baumann told him to take the jeep. The defendant said he was holding the shotgun at waist level and said he was not pointing it at Mr. Baumann; then, according to the defendant, Mr. Baumann:
'. . . started to make a movement like he was getting up out of the chair and then I was jumpy at the time and then I backed into the TV set and that is when the gun went off and I shot him.'
The defendant described how he came to pull the second trigger and testified:
'Well, he was standing at the time, you know, and he swung around and then I pulled the second trigger and I shot him in the back.'
Defendant testified that he was aware that he pulled the trigger the second time but said he did not know if he intended to pull it. After firing the second shot, defendant took Mr. Baumann's wallet out of his rear pants pocket, removed the money and threw the wallet on the sofa, turned off the television set, and left in the jeep. The defendant testified that he did not move the body.
The defendant drove the jeep into Sheboygan where he saw a friend in a high school parking lot. The friend testified that he noticed a double-barrel shotgun in a very thin case between the two seats in the jeep and was told by the defendant that the defendant had found the vehicle with the gun in it. This witness also testified that the defendant seemed quite nervous, was looking around a lot and was nervously rubbing the stick shift of the vehicle. Defendant then drove the jeep south, through Milwaukee and Chicago, to Indiana where he ran out of gas and abandoned the jeep on the roadside. Defendant was arrested for hitch-hiking and was taken to the LaPorte, Indiana, county jail. He told the police that he was a runaway from the boys home in Sheboygan and said that a truck had dropped him off where the police found him. The police called the home in Sheboygan and the Sheboygan police and sheriff's departments who informed the Indiana police that the defendant was in fact a runaway and a possible suspect in a homicide. After being advised of his constitutional rights, the defendant informed the Indiana authorities that he stole the car but he had not shot anyone.
At approximately 6:30 a.m. on October 11, 1973, the jeep was found abandoned on the shoulder of a highway about two miles from where the defendant had been arrested and a double-barrel shotgun was found in it. By the afternoon of October 11th the Sheboygan police had arrived in LaPorte; the defendant was again advised of his constitutional rights. In an interview with the Sheboygan authorities he insisted he had found the jeep and had no knowledge of the shooting death of Mr. Baumann. He stayed with that story for about three hours; then the officer left briefly and when he returned he told the defendant he thought he was lying and the defendant then said, 'I shot the guy.' Then he proceeded to give the officer the account of the events surrounding the shooting, as outlined above. This was also the testimony of the defendant at trial. In addition, he told the officer that when he confronted Mr. Baumann there were no heated words, no argument, 'no swearing or cussing.' He also told the officer regarding the second shot that he 'went nuts and put a second shell' into Mr. Baumann; he said the second shot struck Mr. Baumann in the back and that Mr. Maumann ended up by laying on his stomach on the floor.
The body was discovered by Mrs. Baumann later that afternoon. The empty wallet was on the sofa. The pathologist from the Wisconsin state crime laboratory, who performed the autopsy on Mr. Baumann's body, testified at the trial that Mr. Baumann was shot twice, once through the back chest area above the rib cage and below the level of the shoulders and once through the front chest area. He recovered approximately 47 lead pellets from the body and testified that Mr. Baumann was shot first in the back, then in the front and that it was the second shot that killed him instantly. He said the shot to the back chest area entered the body at a horizontal or straight angle, while the shot to the front angled slightly downward. He said it was his opinion that the distance from the muzzle of the gun to the body was three to nine feet. He also believed the body had been moved after the shooting; that it had been on its back after the shooting and then was rolled over onto the stomach.
The firearms identification analyst from the state crime laboratory testified that seven pounds of pressure were required to fire the first or forward trigger of the shotgun and five and three-quarters pounds of pressure were needed to fire the second or rear trigger. He also testified that when the breach was opened, as had been done here by the defendant to see if it was loaded, an automatic safety went on and one must manually push a certain bar to release the safety and allow the trigger to be pulled and the gun to discharge. Defendant testified he was not sure how this safety may have been released.
A friend of the defendant testified that he had conversed with the defendant in September of 1973 and that the defendant had said he would like to kill someone sometime 'to experience what it would be like to watch the body fall.' The defendant had also told him that he had aimed his rifle at another hunter while hunting once but had not fired because a third hunter came along and he was afraid he might be caught.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury was instructed on both first and third degree murder and returned a verdict of guilty of first degree murder. Following denial of motions after verdict, the trial judge entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced the defendant to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Driebel v. City of Milwaukee
...interpretation of the law, for it is contradicted by the very language of the Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling in Smith v. State, 69 Wis.2d 297, 230 N.W.2d 858 (Wis.1975), where the Court stated in a murder case: "One is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of pointing a......
-
Muller v. State
...intent. In Cupps v. State, 120 Wis. 504, 513, 97 N.W. 210, 214 (1904), which was quoted with approval in Smith v. State, 69 Wis.2d 297, 303, 230 N.W.2d 858 (1975), this court "When it is made to appear in the prosecution of a case like this that the accused fired the shot, the weapon being ......
-
Lofton v. State, 76-015-CR
...first-degree murder, the fact that the defendant shot his victim in a vital part raises a presumption of intent. Smith v. State (1975), 69 Wis.2d 297, 303, 304, 230 N.W.2d 858." In the instant complaint, Officer Grenke stated that he observed a bullet hole in the victim's chest and the vict......
-
State v. Dix
...acts he voluntarily and knowingly performs may be applied in an attempt murder case. Id. at 514, 266 N.W.2d 270; Smith v. State, 69 Wis.2d 297, 304, 230 N.W.2d 858 (1975). Where the act is an assault with a deadly weapon the presumption is that there was an intent to kill. Fells v. State, 6......