State v. Dowe
Decision Date | 16 August 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83-2114-CR,83-2114-CR |
Citation | 120 Wis.2d 192,352 N.W.2d 660 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry R. DOWE, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
David J. Becker, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom on the briefs was Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellant.
Glenn L. Cushing, Asst. State Public Defender, for defendant-respondent.
The court of appeals certified this appeal which questions whether the opinion of the majority of a multimember court controls on a point of law where it is given in a concurring rather than lead opinion. Because the circuit court erroneously ruled that it does not, we reverse the order dismissing this case and remand for further proceedings.
Defendant was charged with delivery of a controlled substance in violation of section 161.41(1)(b), Stats. He moved the circuit court under section 905.10, Stats., for an order requiring the state to disclose the identity of a confidential informant present at the time of the alleged offense. The court conducted an in-camera hearing after which it concluded the informant could provide information relevant to guilt or innocence. However, this information would, in fact, be harmful to the potential defenses of entrapment and misidentification. Yet when the state refused to disclose the identity of the informer, the court dismissed the case.
Its decision was based upon State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis.2d 112, 321 N.W.2d 145 (1982) which concerned the obligation of the state when a defendant seeks the identity of a confidential informer. The lead opinion by three justices discussed the state's burden at the in-camera hearing and agreed with the court of appeals that the circuit court abused its discretion in not requiring disclosure. Thus affirmance of the court of appeals' reversal of conviction was in order. Two concurring opinions, each joined in by the remaining four justices, agreed up to this point. But the lead opinion went further and spoke of the test to be applied by the circuit court after the in-camera proceedings:
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 132, 321 N.W.2d at 156.
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 141, 321 N.W.2d at 160.
The circuit court in the instant matter was uncertain of the impact of the Outlaw concurrences. It ultimately ruled that notwithstanding the concurrences and the fact that the informant's information was not helpful to the defense, the statement in the lead...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Milwaukee v. Arrieh
...insofar as this opinion differs from that written by Judge Schudson, this opinion is the court's opinion. See State v. Dowe, 120 Wis.2d 192, 194, 352 N.W.2d 660, 662 (1984) (a concurrence that commands a majority is the opinion of the court) (per curiam 1 Both cases were decided subsequent ......
-
Vivid, Inc. v. Fiedler
...of a majority of participating justices on a particular issue becomes the opinion of the court on that issue. See State v. Dowe, 120 Wis.2d 192, 194, 352 N.W.2d 660 (1984); see also State v. Elam, 195 Wis.2d 683, 685, 538 N.W.2d 249 (1995); State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis.2d 112, 321 N.W.2d 145 (1......
-
State v. Lynch
...always consider it binding. See, e.g., State v. King, 205 Wis.2d 81, 88–89, 555 N.W.2d 189 (Ct.App.1996) (citing State v. Dowe, 120 Wis.2d 192, 194, 352 N.W.2d 660 (1984) ).¶ 146 We would avoid the unnecessary confusion caused by Justice Gableman's dissenting “lead” opinion, and issue a sim......
-
Bernards v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue (In re Estate of Bongard)
...of the court, unless it appears that the majority of the court concurred in such separately expressed views”); see also State v. Dowe, 120 Wis.2d 192, 352 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Wis.1984) (“In Outlaw [ State v. Outlaw, 108 Wis.2d 112, 321 N.W.2d 145 (Wis.1982) ], the lead opinion represents the m......
-
Early steps in the case
...in this case; PURSUANT to secs. 905.l0(b) and (c) of the Wisconsin Statutes; State v. Outlaw, l08 Wis. 2d 112 (l982); State v. Dowe, 120 Wis.2d 192 (1984); the Fifth, Sixth, and EARLY STEPS IN THE CASE 1-29 Early Steps in the Case Form 1-3 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu......
-
Early steps in the case
...in this case; PURSUANT to secs. 905.l0(b) and (c) of the Wisconsin Statutes; State v. Outlaw, l08 Wis. 2d 112 (l982); State v. Dowe, 120 Wis.2d 192 (1984); the Fifth, Sixth, and EARLY STEPS IN THE CASE 1-29 Early Steps in the Case Form 1-3 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu......
-
Early Steps in the Case
...in this case; PURSUANT to secs. 905.l0(b) and (c) of the Wisconsin Statutes; State v. Outlaw, l08 Wis. 2d 112 (l982); State v. Dowe, 120 Wis.2d 192 (1984); the Fifth, Sixth, and Form 1-3 EARLY STEPS IN THE CASE 1-28 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; article 1, secs. 5......
-
Early Steps in the Case
...in this case; PURSUANT to secs. 905.l0(b) and (c) of the Wisconsin Statutes; State v. Outlaw, l08 Wis. 2d 112 (l982); State v. Dowe, 120 Wis.2d 192 (1984); the Fifth, Sixth, and Form 1-3 SUPPRESSING CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 1-26 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; article 1, s......