State v. Hyndman, 91-2256-CR
| Decision Date | 07 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-2256-CR,91-2256-CR |
| Citation | 170 Wis.2d 198,488 N.W.2d 111 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert J. HYNDMAN, Defendant-Appellant. d |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Before MOSER, P.J., and SULLIVAN and FINE, JJ.
Robert J. Hyndman appeals from a judgment of conviction for solicitation to commit a felony, delivery of cocaine, in violation of secs. 161.41(1)(c), 161.16(2)(b)(1), 939.30, and 939.05, Stats. (party to a crime). On appeal, Hyndman argues that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to grant his motion for summary dismissal of charges stemming from the State's outrageous conduct for initiating and manufacturing this offense. Hyndman asserts that the failure of the trial court to grant the motion deprived him of his due process rights. We disagree and affirm.
Hyndman raises two reviewable issues on appeal: 1 (1) whether the trial court committed reversible error in denying Hyndman's motion for summary judgment to dismiss due to outrageous governmental conduct; and (2) whether the State's conduct as a matter of constitutional fact constituted outrageous governmental conduct warranting a reversal of the conviction.
The trial court, after an evidentiary hearing on Hyndman's dismissal motion, found the following facts, which are supported by the record. In January 1988, Hyndman, a licensed attorney, represented Brad Olson. At that time, Olson was in the Milwaukee County Jail. In the latter part of January or February, 1988, Olson told Hyndman that he wanted to work with the Narcotics Squad in an undercover capacity. Hyndman approached police detective Alan Wilkie. Detective Wilkie had met with Olson on a prior occasion, but did not know that Hyndman, a social and professional friend, represented Olson. Hyndman asked Detective Wilkie to appear at Olson's revocation of probation hearing at the House of Corrections to be of help in Olson's release so that he could assist the Narcotics Squad. Detective Wilkie appeared at the revocation hearing as agreed. The court granted revocation of Olson's probation.
Several weeks after the revocation hearing, Olson called Detective Wilkie to express his anger with Hyndman's performance at the hearing and his belief that Hyndman was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the hearing. Olson told Detective Wilkie that Hyndman wanted to use Detective Wilkie to obtain his release from jail and, once released, Olson and Hyndman On the same day that Olson told Detective Wilkie of his conspiracy with Hyndman, Detective Wilkie met Detective James Cesar of the Milwaukee Police Department while in the offices of the vice squad. Detective Cesar testified that while talking with Detective Wilkie in the vice squad offices, Hyndman telephoned Detective Wilkie. Detective Cesar listened in on the conversation between Hyndman and Detective Wilkie by sharing the same telephone receiver with Detective Wilkie. Detective Wilkie testified that Hyndman told Detective Wilkie, Detective Wilkie then referred the matter to Detective Cesar to avoid any conflict of interest.
would work in unison to purchase and sell guns and drugs.
Detective Cesar interviewed Olson over a month and a half after Olson originally complained to Detective Wilkie about Hyndman's representation at the hearing. Detective Cesar testified that Olson told him that Hyndman sought Olson's assistance in the acquisition and resale of cocaine in kilo lots. 2 Detective Cesar also testified that Olson decided to arrange a cocaine transaction for Hyndman since he had not been contacted by any police detective. In this first drug arrangement, of which the police had no knowledge, Olson lined up a cocaine purchase for Hyndman in Chicago. Hyndman went to the wrong hotel and the drug transaction was never consummated. Olson and Detective Cesar then agreed that Cesar would act as a substitute for the Chicago cocaine source and arrange a second, now fictitious, drug transaction.
Olson subsequently telephoned Hyndman from the House of Corrections to arrange another cocaine transaction. Over the course of thirteen days, Detective Cesar, acting as a drug resource, made many telephone calls to Hyndman in an attempt to sell him cocaine. Hyndman explained to Cesar that he was having a difficult time securing enough money to complete the drug deal. As stated by the trial court: "Caesar [sic] expressed some impatience and Hyndman pleaded to be patient because he wanted to do a deal." An undercover officer gave Hyndman instructions to travel to a townhouse complex to purchase the desired amount of cocaine. Hyndman tendered $17,000 in cash to the officer and was immediately placed under arrest.
Hyndman and three co-defendants were charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, as parties to a crime. Hyndman filed several pretrial motions, including a motion to suppress statements and a motion for summary disposition on the grounds of outrageous governmental conduct. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the motions. Hyndman's case was severed from his co-defendants and an amended information charging Hyndman with solicitation to commit a felony, delivery of a controlled substance, was filed. Hyndman waived his right to a jury trial and the case was tried to the court. Hyndman was found guilty as charged in the amended information and was sentenced to thirty months imprisonment. It is from this judgment of conviction that Hyndman files this appeal.
Hyndman argues that his dismissal motion should be treated as a motion for summary judgment as provided by sec. 802.08, Stats. (summary judgment). Hyndman contends he is entitled to a dismissal based upon outrageous governmental conduct because the State failed to file a counter-affidavit to his affidavit attached to the motion, thereby conceding the facts set forth in his own affidavit. Hyndman also asserts that the State implicitly concedes the factual allegations set forth in his brief in support of his motion because the State neither challenged nor controverted those allegations in its reply brief or in the form of an affidavit. Hyndman concludes that since the alleged facts are uncontroverted and implicitly conceded, there is a sufficient basis upon which to grant his motion to dismiss, which is therefore analogous to a motion for summary judgment in a civil case.
Hyndman relies on State v. Bruckner, 151 Wis.2d 833, 864 n. 15, 447 N.W.2d 376, 389 n. 15 (Ct.App.1989), and Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 161, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2679, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), for his proposition that summary judgment affidavits are relevant and appropriate for a motion to suppress in a criminal proceeding. He also relies on sec. 972.11(1), Stats. (applicability of civil rules to criminal proceedings) as an additional basis for this argument. Section 972.11(1) provides: "[T]he rules of evidence and practice in civil actions shall be applicable in all criminal proceedings unless the context of a section or rule manifestly requires a different construction." Whether sec. 802.08, Stats. (summary judgment) is applicable to a criminal proceeding via sec. 972.11 is a question of law that this court decides without deference to the trial court. See Crowley v. Knapp, 94 Wis.2d 421, 429-30, 288 N.W.2d 815, 819-20 (1980).
A felony complaint alleges the essential facts to prove the elements of the charged offense. Section 968.01(2), Stats. (criminal complaint). Once arrested, the defendant makes an initial appearance before a judge, sec. 970.01, Stats. (initial appearance), is entitled to a preliminary hearing for a determination of probable cause for the charged crime(s), sec. 970.03, Stats. (preliminary examination), and if probable cause is found, then the defendant is arraigned and enters a plea, sec. 971.05(4), Stats. (arraignment). 3 A defendant who pleads "not guilty" to the charges set forth in the Information, sec. 971.01, Stats. (filing of the information), denies the charges, thereby requiring the State to prove every element of the charged offense(s). See Wis J I--Criminal 110. A plea of "not guilty" creates material issues of fact for the trier of fact to decide. Summary judgment lies only when no material issues of fact exist and a party, as a matter of law, is entitled to judgment. Section 802.08(2), Stats.
Hyndman entered a plea of "not guilty," thus creating issues of fact to be determined at trial. Uncontroverted affidavits or uncontroverted alleged facts in a brief in support of a motion to dismiss are not conclusive fact determinations in a criminal case. Hyndman's reliance upon Bruckner and Franks is misplaced. Both cases pertained to motions to suppress evidence seized as the result of a search warrant. In Bruckner and Franks, affidavits challenged the validity of the search warrants because the warrants' supporting affidavits contained knowingly- or recklessly-made false statements. Bruckner, 151 Wis.2d at 863, 447 N.W.2d at 389; Franks, 438 U.S. at 161, 98 S.Ct. at 2679.
The sole purpose of the affidavits submitted by the defense in Bruckner and Franks was to induce the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the knowing or reckless disregard for the truth of the assertions in the warrant affidavits. Franks, 438 U.S. at 170, 98 S.Ct. at 2683. Furthermore, sec. 972.11(1), Stats., prescribes application of civil action rules to criminal proceedings unless the context of the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schulpius, 02-1056.
...of unlawful confinement in violation of court orders "`shocking to the universal sense of justice'"? See State v. Hyndman, 170 Wis. 2d 198, 208-09, 488 N.W.2d 111 (Ct. App. 1992) (quoting United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 432 (1973)). Does such governmental misconduct "shock[] the con......
-
State v. Noble, 99-3271-CR.
...notions of fundamental fairness when the conduct is "`shocking to the universal sense of justice ....'" State v. Hyndman, 170 Wis. 2d 198, 208-09, 488 N.W.2d 111 (Ct. App. 1992) (quoting U.S. v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 432 (1973)); see also State v. Steadman, 152 Wis. 2d 293, 300-02, 448 N.W......
-
State v. Ryan
...we review independently of the determinations rendered by the circuit court and the court of appeals. See State v. Hyndman, 170 Wis.2d 198, 205, 488 N.W.2d 111 (Ct.App.1992).III ¶ 32 We begin by addressing the circuit court's application of the equitable doctrine of judicial estoppel. Judic......
-
State v. Goad
...been so outrageous as to "violate fundamental fairness" and be "shocking to the universal sense of justice." State v. Hyndman, 170 Wis.2d 198, 208, 488 N.W.2d 111, 115 (Ct.App.1992) (citation omitted). Goad does not identify how any of the acts which he alleges to have occurred in the revoc......