State v. Garnett
| Decision Date | 12 October 1943 |
| Citation | 243 Wis. 615,11 N.W.2d 166 |
| Parties | STATE v. GARNETT. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment and an order of the Circuit Court for Eau Claire County; Clarence E. Rinehard, Judge.
Reversed.
Criminal action by the State against Myron Garnett. From a judgment convicting him of statutory rape, sec. 340.47, Stats., and sentencing him to ten years imprisonment in the State's Prison, and an order denying a new trial on newly discovered evidence, the defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion.
F. V. McManamy and A. J. Sutherland, both of Eau Claire, for appellant.
John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John D. Kaiser, Dist. Atty., of Eau Claire, for respondent.
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of the offense of statutory rape, sec. 340.47, Stats., and sentenced by the court to imprisonment in the State's Prison for ten years. The statute defines the offense as carnal knowledge by a person over eighteen years of age with a female under that age. That an act of sexual intercourse by someone with the girl named in the information, hereinafter referred to as Delores, was manifest at the trial from her advanced state of pregnancy. At the time Delores claimed the defendant had intercourse with her the defendant was thirty-seven and she was fifteen years and ten months old. A motion for a new trial was made on the grounds of newly discovered evidence and of improper statements made by the district attorney during his argument to the jury. The newly discovered evidence was that eight days after the trial Delores gave birth to a fully developed child born 212 days after she claimed the defendant had intercourse with her. This motion was overruled. The defendant appealed both from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.
The evidence adduced at the trial supported the verdict. We shall only discuss this question: Should the court have granted the new trial in view of (1) statements of the district attorney during his argument to the jury duly objected to at the time of their utterance and the inept manner in which the trial judge handled the objections, and (2) the showing that the child was born about 68 days before expiration of the normal period of gestation if the period be computed from the date Delores claimed the defendant had intercourse with her.
(1) The statements complained of were two:
(a) That upon conviction the defendant “could be fined one dollar and costs.” Objection was made by defendant's counsel. To this the court merely said: “Perhaps you had better not bring up the matter of punishment to be imposed.” The remark should have been properly characterized as highly improper and the district attorney in some way reprimanded for making it, and the jury instructed that the extent of the punishment was entirely immaterial in determining the question of defendant's guilt. The statement was impliedly directed to the counsel for the defendant as much as to the district attorney and barred him from saying that the punishment could be imprisonment for thirty-five years, which he might properly have said in reply unless the district attorney's statement were somehow sufficiently off-set by statements of the trial judge. The judge said in his charge that the offense with which the defendant was charged was a serious one, as it is from a moral and social standpoint, as well as from the standpoint of penalty, but this did not repel the imputation of the district attorney that from the standpoint of punishment it was a trivial thing. The minimum sentence having been told to the jury it should have been met by a statement of the maximum by the trial judge, in view of the objection, and the jury told in substance that the punishment was solely for the judge to determine and they must decide the case according to the evidence regardless of what punishment might be imposed.
(b) The other statement of the district attorney objected to was “that because of this incident (defendant's claimed act of intercourse) she (Delores) is now pregnant with child.” Defendant's counsel immediately objected to the remark and coupled with his objection the statement that “That is not the testimony.” The trial judge merely remarked: “The jury will remember the testimony and conclude whether counsel's remarks are based on the evidence.” These statements, that of the district attorney and that of the court, together had a tendency to lead the jury to infer that the fact of pregnancy, which of course was obvious as Delores gave birth to a child eight days after the trial, was evidence tending to show that the defendant committed the act Delores claimed he committed. The fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wolff
...right to a fair trial. It is improper for the prosecutor to refer to possible penalties in closing argument. State v. Garnett, 243 Wis. 615, 617-18, 11 N.W.2d 166, 167 (1943). It is also true, as Wolff suggests, that a prosecutor's misconduct can rise to such a level that the defendant is d......
-
In re the Commitment of Richard D. Sugden.State
...464, 481–82, 387 N.W.2d 751 (1986) (legal effect of verdict is irrelevant to the jury's fact-finding function); State v. Garnett, 243 Wis. 615, 617–18, 11 N.W.2d 166 (1943) (where the prosecutor improperly told the jury of the minimum sentence, upon objection by the defense the court should......
-
Jung v. State
...of any kind to review a sentence within the maximum limits and until recently this theory was followed in this state. State v. Garnett (1943), 243 Wis. 615, 11 N.W.2d 166; State v. Sullivan (1942), 241 Wis. 276, 5 N.W.2d 798; State v. Michaels (1938), 226 Wis. 574, 277 N.W. 157. However, in......
-
State Of Wis. v. Sugden
...2d 464, 481-82, 387 N.W.2d 751 (1986) (legal effect of verdict is irrelevant to the jury's fact-finding function); State v. Garnett, 243 Wis. 615, 11 N.W.2d 166 (1943) (where the prosecutor improperly told the jury of the minimum sentence, upon objection by the defense the court should have......