State v. Hayes
| Decision Date | 16 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-1542-CR.,02-1542-CR. |
| Citation | 2004 WI 80,681 N.W.2d 203,273 Wis.2d 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Obea S. HAYES, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Philip J. Brehm, Janesville, and oral argument by Philip J. Brehm.
For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Sally L. Wellman, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general.
¶ 1.
This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals1 affirming the judgment of conviction of Obea S. Hayes, the defendant, in the Circuit Court for Rock County, David G. Deininger, Judge.2 The defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual assault pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 940.225(2)(a) (2001-02).3
¶ 2. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding that the defendant did not have to raise a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence during trial to preserve the challenge for appeal as a matter of right and that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt of second-degree sexual assault.
¶ 3. Two issues are raised on review. The first issue is whether the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must have been raised during trial to preserve the challenge for appeal as a matter of right. Second, if the court reaches the issue, was the evidence sufficient in the present case to support the jury's verdict, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt of second-degree sexual assault.
¶ 4. The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and N. Patrick Crooks join the author of this opinion in concluding that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence did not have to be raised during trial to preserve the issue for appeal as a matter of right and that the evidence was sufficient in the present case to support the jury's verdict, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt of second-degree sexual assault. Justice David T. Prosser, Jr., in a concurring opinion, adopts the interpretation of the statute set out in State v. Gomez, 179 Wis. 2d 400, 402, 507 N.W.2d 378 (Ct. App. 1993).4 Thus, four members of the court reach the same result on the statute. Justices Diane S. Sykes and Jon P. Wilcox, in a concurring opinion, conclude that the waiver rule applies to sufficiency of the evidence challenges and that "sufficiency of evidence challenges [cannot] be made for the first time on appeal as a matter of right."5 Justice Patience D. Roggensack, in a concurring opinion, concludes that an accused's right to challenge the sufficiency of evidence is "bottomed in the requirement that the State must prove an accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that to relieve the State of that burden at any point in the process undermines the fundamental constitutional principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until the State proves him or her guilty by that requisite degree of proof."6
¶ 5. The defendant did not move the circuit court for a directed verdict at the close of the State's evidence or the close of all the evidence and made no motions after judgment. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the first time on appeal. He continues to raise this issue before this court on review.
¶ 6. The State argued in the court of appeals and argues here that the defendant waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because he failed to raise the issue in a timely manner during trial.
¶ 7. Whether a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be raised during trial to preserve the issue on appeal as a matter of right is a question of law requiring statutory interpretation. This court decides this issue independently of the court of appeals, but benefiting from its analysis.7
¶ 8. The principal statute at issue is Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2), which provides as follows:
¶ 9. The State and the defendant disagree on the meaning of this statute. The State argues that Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2) exempts criminal appellants from filing a postconviction motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as a prerequisite to appellate review. The State's position is that Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2) is directed only toward postconviction motions, not toward challenging the sufficiency of the evidence during trial to preserve the issue on appeal as a matter of right.
¶ 10. According to the State, an accused must challenge the sufficiency of the evidence by a motion during trial to preserve the right to appellate review of that claim. Wisconsin Stat. § 974.02(2), argues the State, eliminates only the redundancy of requiring an accused to bring issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, to the circuit court both during trial and by postconviction motion. The State argues that an accused must raise all issues about which he seeks appeal during trial as a prerequisite for appellate review as a matter of right.
¶ 11. The defendant argues that the State's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2) is erroneous. The State's interpretation, according to the defendant, renders the words "sufficiency of the evidence" surplusage and meaningless. The defendant contends that if a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence has to be raised during trial, the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is equated with every other claimed error and would fall within the statutory phrase "issues previously raised." The defendant urges that because § 974.02(2) uses both "sufficiency of the evidence" and "issues previously raised," the two phrases must have different meanings.
¶ 12. The phrases have different meanings if § 974.02(2) is interpreted as signifying that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence need not be previously raised during trial. The defendant's position can be summarized by saying that there would be no reason for the legislature to have included the language "sufficiency of the evidence" along with "issues previously raised" if failure to raise the issue during trial would preclude an accused from raising the sufficiency issues on appeal as a matter of right.
¶ 13. The defendant bolsters his argument by pointing to the court of appeals' decision in State v. Gomez, 179 Wis. 2d 400, 507 N.W.2d 378 (Ct. App. 1993). Gomez was convicted of child enticement and various other sex crimes. Gomez appealed his conviction on the child enticement offense, arguing insufficiency of the evidence. The State argued in Gomez that the defendant had waived the challenge because he had not raised the issue in the circuit court before, during, or after trial. Without analysis of Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2) or the waiver issue, the court of appeals simply concluded that "Gomez correctly asserts that his argument is based upon the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, which under sec. 974.02(2), Stats., does not require a prior postconviction motion."8
¶ 14. The court of appeals concluded in the present case, without analysis, that it was bound to follow the Gomez decision. We recognize, as does the State, that the Gomez decision, although precedential, has limited precedential and persuasive value for the following reasons.9 The Gomez decision does not analyze Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2). Nor does it consider the competing arguments about whether an accused who does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence during trial should be held to have waived the right to argue the issue on appeal.
¶ 15 The text of Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2) referring only to postconviction motions supports the State's interpretation. The text of § 974.02(2) referring to "sufficiency of the evidence or issues previously raised" supports the defendant's interpretation. ¶ 16 The text of Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2) is thus not determinative of the meaning of the statute and is not the only source of the intended effect of the text. Additional sources of legislative intent such as the context, history, scope, and objective of the statute, including the consequences of alternative interpretations, illuminate the intent of the legislature.
¶ 17. We now consider those alternative sources, including: (A) the context of the statute; (B) the history of the statute; and (C) the purposes and consequences of the parties' competing interpretations of Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2).
¶ 18. Wisconsin Stat. § 974.02(2) must be viewed in the context of chapter 974 as a whole. This chapter governs criminal procedure in appeals, new trials, and writs of error. Nothing in chapter 974 explicitly addresses the issue of whether a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must be raised in the circuit court during trial to preserve the issue for appeal as a matter of right.
¶ 19. Wisconsin Stat. § 974.02(2) must also be viewed in the context of chapter 972, which governs criminal trials. Wisconsin Stat. § 972.10(4) governs motions during trial. Section 972.10(4) provides that at the conclusion of the entire case, an accused may move on the record for a dismissal. One ground for dismissal is the insufficiency of the evidence. Motions for a directed verdict and motions to dismiss at the close of the State's case or at the close of all evidence are accepted practice. The court has held that if an accused moves to dismiss on grounds of insufficiency of evidence, the circuit court may exercise its discretion to allow the State to introduce additional testimony after the State has rested.10
¶ 20. The State asks the court to examine Wis. Stat. § 974.02(2) in the context of Wis. Stat. § 805.14(6), a rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crawford
...only the defendant, who may be serving a sentence for a conviction not supported by sufficient evidence. See State v. Hayes , 273 Wis.2d 1, 681 N.W.2d 203, 214 (2004) (rejecting similar claim of sandbagging on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim since a defendant is unlikely to spend more t......
-
Maurin v. Hall
... ... Johnson, 155 Wis.2d 659, 456 N.W.2d 336 (1990), rev'd on other grounds, Chang v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 182 Wis.2d 549, 514 N.W.2d 399 (1994), and Jelinek v. St. Paul Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 182 Wis.2d 1, 512 N.W.2d 764 ... ...
-
Anderson v. Aul
...The “consequences of alternative interpretations” language was created by Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson's opinion in State v. Hayes, 2004 WI 80, ¶ 16, 273 Wis.2d 1, 681 N.W.2d 203. See Hayes, 273 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 112, 681 N.W.2d 203 (Sykes, J., concurring) (explaining that consideration of......
-
Legue v. City of Racine & Amy L. Matsen
...333 Wis.2d 580, ¶ 18, 798 N.W.2d 223; Lagerstrom v. Myrtle Werth Hosp.-Mayo Health Sys., 2005 WI 124, ¶ 51, 285 Wis.2d 1, 700 N.W.2d 201. 34.State v. Hayes, 2004 WI 80, ¶ 16, 273 Wis.2d 1, 681 N.W.2d 203; Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 2006 WI 89, ¶ 30, 293 Wis.2d 123, 717 N.W.2d 258 ......
-
Wisconsin Court of Appeals issues decision for third time.
...54 Wis.2d 370, 195 N.W.2d 837 (1972), has been superseded by State v. Ivy, 119 Wis.2d 591, 350 N.W.2d 622 (1984), and State v. Hayes, 2004 WI 80, 273 Wis.2d 1, 681 N.W.2d Sufficiency of Evidence In Peterson, the state Supreme Court held that a sufficiency of the evidence claim may not be ra......