State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court, Branch II, Waukesha County
| Decision Date | 20 December 1968 |
| Citation | 163 N.W.2d 6,41 Wis.2d 188 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. Ralph Lee JOHNSON, Appellant, v. COUNTY COURT, BRANCH II, WAUKESHA COUNTY, Wisconsin, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Jack R. Silbar, Menomonee Falls, for appellant. Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz and Betty R. Brown, Asst. Attys. Gen., Madison, Roger P. Murphy, Dist. Atty. Waukesha County, Waukesha, for respondent.
The petitioner was charged with a violation of sec. 176.30(1), Stats. (sale of liquor to minors).
The petitioner moved for pretrial discovery of the prosecution's evidence before the respondent, County Court, Branch II, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, Hon. William G. Callow, presiding. The respondent ordered the district attorney to furnish the petitioner with any inculpatory statements he may have given, but otherwise denied the motion for pretrial discovery.
Thereupon, petitioner filed the instant petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus before the circuit court of Waukesha county to compel the county court to grant pretrial discovery. The petition alleges several general grounds for the issuance of the writ: denial of the right to confrontation, denial of effective assistance of counsel and due process of law, and denial of a fair hearing. The petition also asserts that petitioner has no other adequate legal remedy.
The circuit court issued an alternative writ of mandamus requiring the respondent to order the district attorney to grant petitioner pretrial discovery or show cause to the contrary.
Respondent appeared by the district attorney and filed a motion to quash the alternative writ of mandamus on the ground 'that no reason in law is stated in the petition herein for the issuance therof, and said petition does not show that the said Ralph Lee Johnson is entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed.'
The circuit court heard arguments and determined it had no authority to order pretrial discovery in a criminal proceeding and consequently entered an order denying and dismissing the petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus on its merits.
In the same order, the circuit court stated it 'does not rule upon the sufficiency of Respondent's Motion to Quash.' In doing so the circuit court stated: 'I refused to issue the Writ of Mandamus, which means that I bypassed your motion (to quash) and decided the question on the merits, but I bypassed your motion in order to get to the merits.'
From the order of the circuit court denying and dismissing the petition for a peremptory writ of mandamus, the petitioner appeals.
The petitioner raises a procedural matter which we shall consider before reaching the merits of whether mandamus should lie. The petitioner argues that because the respondent did not appeal the circuit court's failure to rule on the motion to quash, it cannot now argue that mandamus was not a proper remedy.
The practical effect of the order of the trial judge which denied and dismissed the petition produced the same result as a specific ruling granting the respondent's motion to quash.
Upon this issuance of the alternative writ, the respondent had three alternatives: (1) comply with the order, (2) make a return to the writ upon the specified day, or (3) move to quash. A motion to quash is treated like a demurrer and admits the allegations of fact set forth in the petition. State ex rel. James L. Callan, Inc. v. Barg (1958), 3 Wis.2d 488, 89 N.W.2d 267.
After a party moves to quash, the trial court should hold a hearing on the motion and the appeal would be taken from the order granting or denying the motion to quash. 1 Here the appeal is on the order denying and dismissing the petition for a peremptory writ. By following this established procedure, the issue now raised on appeal would be avoided.
However, the procedure utilized by the circuit court accomplishes the same result and does not change the substance of the appeal.
The prerequisites to issuance of a writ of mandamus were set forth in Neu v. Voege (1897), 96 Wis. 489, 493, 71 N.W. 880, 881. This court stated that the writ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wold v. State
...of whether a discovery motion would be granted was a matter of discretion with the trial court. See State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court (1968), 41 Wis.2d 188, 163 N.W.2d 6; See also Woodhull v. State (1969), 43 Wis.2d 202, 168 N.W.2d 281; State v. Miller, supra, 35 Wis.2d at p. 478, 151 N......
-
Miller v. Smith
...inequitable ...." Burns v. City of Madison, 92 Wis.2d 232, 243, 284 N.W.2d 631 (1979), quoting from State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court, 41 Wis.2d 188, 192, 163 N.W.2d 6 (1968), and Neu v. Voege, 96 Wis. 489, 493, 71 N.W. 880 Miller claims that she possessed a "clear legal right" to the w......
-
Milwaukee County v. Schmidt
...This motion to quash was denied, and no appeal was taken from the order so denying the motion to quash. State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court (1968), 41 Wis.2d 188, 163 N.W.2d 6; State ex rel. Hurley v. Schmidley (1970), 48 Wis.2d 659, 180 N.W.2d After the appellants' motion to quash had be......
-
Law Enforcement Standards Bd. v. Village of Lyndon Station
...inequitable ....' Burns v. City of Madison, 92 Wis.2d 232, 243, 284 N.W.2d 631 (1979) quoting from State ex rel. Johnson v. County Court, 41 Wis.2d 188, 192, 163 N.W.2d 6 (1968) and Neu v. Voege, 96 Wis. 489, 493, 71 N.W. 880 (1897)." It is an abuse of discretion to refuse to issue the writ......