State v. Carli
| Decision Date | 04 February 1958 |
| Citation | 2 Wis.2d 429,87 N.W.2d 830 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. John S. CARLI, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Stewart G. Honeck, Atty. Gen., Madison, William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., George D. Sullivan, Dist. Atty., Hurley, for respondent.
Defendant asserts that he was deprived of the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Apparently he objects to the consideration by the circuit court of a report of a pre-sentence investigation made at the court's request by the state department of public welfare. This proposition was not considered in the opinion previously filed because it was not referred to either in the brief or no oral argument.
The trial closed March 15, 1956, except that time was allowed for submission of briefs, and sentence was imposed at Hurley on June 26. The pre-sentence investigation had been made and the report submitted to the court before that date. Defendant moved that the judgment be set aside challenging, among other things, the propriety of the court's consideration of the report. The court denied the motion and filed a memorandum reciting the facts. These are not challenged by defendant and the memorandum makes it clear that the pre-sentence investigation was not requested or made until after the court's decision as to defendant's guilt had been dictated to the court reporter and transcribed, although not filed until June 26.
The court stated that he had handled the matter in this way 'so that it would not be necessary for the defendant to appear at Hurley for pronouncement of judgment and then have a pre-sentence investigation ordered and the defendant have to make an additional trip from Milwaukee.' He also stated that between March 15 and June 26, he was completing the regular jury terms in his own circuit and fulfilling previous commitments to try cases in two other circuits.
In relying upon the right of confrontation, defendant overlooks the distinction between the determination of guilt and the exercise of the court's discretion as to probation or extent of punishment. The right 'to meet the witnesses face to face' guaranteed by Art. I, sec. 7, Wis.Const., and the standards of fair trial embraced within the concept of due process of law in the XIVth Amendment, U.S.Const., must be fully respected where the question for consideration is the guilt or innocence of the accused. Once the defendant has been found guilty, he is 'subject to whatever loss of liberty the legislature has prescribed for his crime.' State ex rel. Volden v. Haas, 1953, 264 Wis. 127, 130, 58 N.W.2d 577, 578. That consideration by the court of a confidential report of pre-sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huebner v. State
...S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337; Waddell v. State (1964), 24 Wis.2d 364, 129 N.W.2d 201; State v. Carli (1957), 2 Wis.2d 429, 86 .n.W.2d 434, 87 N.W.2d 830. Whatever infirmities exist in that theory of due process need not now be examined or discussed. We confine ourselves to the issue of whether......
-
Day v. State
...for violation of that right was dependent upon the accused's demand thereto. In State v. Carli (1957), 2 Wis.2d 429, 86 N.W.2d 434, 87 N.W.2d 830, this court held that a determination of whether the right to a speedy trial has been abridged depends upon the circumstances of the case. There ......
-
State v. Reynolds
...22 Wis.2d at page 461, 126 N.W.2d at page 81.5 Kopacka v. State, supra, footnote 2; State v. Carli (1957), 2 Wis.2d 429, 86 N.W.2d 434, 87 N.W.2d 830, 357 U.S. 907, 78 S.Ct. 1151, 2 L.Ed.2d 1157; State v. Sawyer (1953), 263 Wis. 218, 56 N.W.2d 811, 346 U.S. 801, 74 S.Ct. 66, 98 L.Ed. 333.6 ......
-
Hanson v. State, S
...in Williams v. New York (1949), 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337.' State v. Carli (1957), 2 Wis.2d 429, 440b, 86 N.W.2d 434, 87 N.W.2d 830, 831. Also in Waddell v. State (1964), 24 Wis.2d 364, 129 N.W.2d 201, this court again rejected a constitutional challenge to the use of a pre......