State v. Charbarneau
Decision Date | 05 April 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 76-016-CR,76-016-CR |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. Douglas Thor CHARBARNEAU, Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Howard B. Eisenberg, State Public Defender, and Jack E. Schairer, Asst. State Public Defender, on brief, for appellant.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and Wm. L. Gansner, Asst. Atty. Gen., on brief, for respondent.
The action was commenced by the filing of a criminal complaint on December 29, 1975, charging the defendant with burglary, contrary to sec. 943.10, Stats., and theft, contrary to sec. 943.20. An information was filed on January 13, 1976, charging the defendant with these crimes. The defendant was arraigned on January 19, 1976, and pleaded not guilty to both charges. Jury trial was waived.
The prosecutor became aware, before trial, that he would only be able to make out a case against this defendant on a party-to-a-crime theory, under sec. 939.05, Stats. As a result, on February 20, 1976, he filed an amended information, charging the defendant with the same two substantive counts, but specifying the reliance on sec. 939.05 as to each count. Trial was held to the court on February 24, 1976. Before the commencement of the trial, defense counsel objected to proceeding on the amended information without a new arraignment. As a result, the prosecutor withdrew the amended information, and trial proceeded on the original information.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge found the defendant guilty of both counts. Four year sentences were imposed on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Judgment of conviction was entered on March 1, 1976. Appeal is from this judgment.
Two issues are involved in this appeal: First, did the prosecutor, by withdrawing the amended information at the beginning of the trial, thereby waive reliance on the party-to-a-crime theory? Second, if this theory was not waived, was the evidence adduced at trial sufficient to sustain the convictions?
No contention is made in this case that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant on any other theory than party-to-a-crime. If the prosecutor waived his reliance on that theory, the convictions must be reversed.
Sec. 939.05, Stats., provides for prosecution, as a principal, of anyone "concerned in the commission of a crime," whether that person directly committed the crime, aided and abetted in its commission, or conspired to commit it. The purpose of the statute was to abolish the common-law distinction between principals and accessories. State v. Shears, 68 Wis.2d 217, 239, 229 N.W.2d 103 (1975). The statute makes one person vicariously liable for a substantive offense committed by another. State v. Nutley, 24 Wis.2d 527, 554, 129 N.W.2d 155 (1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 918, 85 S.Ct. 912, 13 L.Ed.2d 803 (1965).
This court has repeatedly commended the practice of referring to sec. 939.05, Stats., by number, in the information when the prosecutor knows that the proof is such that a conviction can only be based on a party-to-a-crime theory. La Vigne v. State, 32 Wis.2d 190, 195, 145 N.W.2d 175 (1966); Bethards v. State, 45 Wis.2d 606, 617, 173 N.W.2d 634 (1970); Hardison v. State, 61 Wis.2d 262, 271, 212 N.W.2d 103 (1973). This practice is not, however, mandatory. Bethards, supra; Hardison, supra. The statute by its terms authorizes charging the defendant as a principal. La Vigne, supra; Harrison v. State, 78 Wis.2d 189, 208, 254 N.W.2d 220 (1977). In the absence of a detrimental effect on the defendant, the failure to specifically refer to sec. 939.05 in the information is harmless error. Bethards, supra, 45 Wis.2d at 618, 173 N.W.2d 634; Hardison, supra, 61 Wis.2d at 271, 212 N.W.2d 103.
The present record does not support a claim of detrimental effect on the defendant. The criminal complaint in this case, which was quite lengthy, spelled out the crimes alleged, by reference to facts which lead to conviction only on a party-to-a-crime theory. These facts are the same facts which were adduced at trial.
Moreover, before trial, the prosecutor filed an amended information, specifying reliance on sec. 939.05, Stats. This amended information was withdrawn when the defendant's attorney objected to proceeding without a new arraignment. There could be no reasonable claim, however, that the defendant was not put on notice of the theory of the prosecutor. Defendant's claim to the contrary is unfounded in light of the following discussion at the time the amended complaint was withdrawn:
This colloquy belies any claim that the withdrawal of the amended information led the defendant to believe that the prosecutor would attempt to prove that the defendant directly committed the crimes charged. No detrimental effect to the defendant is shown on this record as a result of the failure to refer to sec. 939.05, Stats., in the original information.
Similarly, the discussion quoted above indicates clearly that, in withdrawing the amended information, the prosecutor had no intention of waiving reliance on the party-to-a-crime theory, nor could the defendant reasonably have believed that he did. The "waiver" theory advanced by the defendant is without support in the record.
The convictions were amply supported by the evidence. The test on review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case has been capsulated as follows:
Bautista v. State, 53 Wis.2d 218, 223, 191 N.W.2d 725, 727 (1971).
Accord, Taylor v. State, 55 Wis.2d 168, 176-77, 197 N.W.2d 805, (1972); Whitmore v. State, 56 Wis.2d 706, 713, 203 N.W.2d 56 (1973).
The convictions in this case can only be sustained on a party-to-a-crime theory, under sec. 939.05, Stats. There are two different party-to-a-crime theories embodied in the statute. Sec. 939.05(2)(b) relates to guilt as an aider and abettor, while sec. 939.05(2)(c) relates to guilt as a conspirator.
There are several different ways in which liability as an aider and abettor has been described. In State v. Nutley, supra, 24 Wis.2d at 554-55, 129 N.W.2d at 167, the liability was described as follows:
"Under the complicity theory of sec. 939.05(2)(b), a person is liable for the substantive crime committed by another if (1) he undertakes conduct (either verbal or overt action) which as a matter of objective fact aids another person in the execution of a crime, and further if (2) he consciously desires, or 'intends' that his conduct will yield such assistance."
To like effect, see, Hawpetoss v. State, 52 Wis.2d 71, 187 N.W.2d 823 (1971). Wis. J.I.-Criminal, Part I, 400(A) provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hecht
...evidence is so limited by these rules." Bautista v. State, 53 Wis.2d 218, 223, 191 N.W.2d 725 (1971). See also, State v. Charbarneau, 82 Wis.2d 644, 650-51, 264 N.W.2d 227 (1978). The Wisconsin case law is very clear that the jury need not unanimously agree as to in which of the alternative......
-
State v. Elverman
...a statute in the information and complaint is harmless error where there is no prejudice to the defendant. See State v. Charbarneau, 82 Wis.2d 644, 648, 264 N.W.2d 227 (1978) (noting that although the court had "repeatedly commended the practice of referring" to the party-to-a-crime statute......
-
State v. Smolinski
...effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused and no other person committed the offense charged. State v. Charbarneau, 82 Wis.2d 644, 655-56, 264 N.W.2d 227, 233 (1978) (quoting State ex rel. Hussong v. Froelich, 62 Wis.2d 577, 586, 215 N.W.2d 390, 396 (1974)). This test raises a......
-
May v. State
...a crime can be committed. This question is entirely distinct from proving the elements of the substantive crime. In State v. Charbarneau, 82 Wis.2d 644, 264 N.W.2d 227 (1978), and even more recently in Holland v. State, 91 Wis.2d 134, 280 N.W.2d 288 (1979), this issue was before this court.......