State v. Karpinski
Decision Date | 04 December 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 76-586-CR,76-586-CR |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kenneth A. KARPINSKI, Defendant-Appellant, Daniel C. Bascome, Defendant. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
David C. Lugert, associate legal counsel, Milwaukee, argued, for defendant-appellant; Henry G. Piano, legal counsel, on brief.
Marguerite M. Moeller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief.
Burt P. Natkins, legal counsel, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Madison, amicus curiae.
This appeal challenges the constitutionality of a criminal complaint on the ground that the Waukesha county district attorney exercised discretion to charge the defendant with a statutory violation in a criminal action when the same conduct could have been prosecuted as an ordinance violation in a civil action. We affirm the order of the circuit court upholding the validity of the criminal complaint.
Karpinski, the defendant, was charged with a misdemeanor, possession of controlled substances (marijuana and amphetamines) in violation of sec. 161.41(3), Stats. 1 The alleged offense occurred on November 30, 1974, in the city of Brookfield in Waukesha county. At the time of the offense the city of Brookfield had an ordinance prohibiting the same conduct which violated sec. 161.41(3), Stats. 2
The penalty for a violation of sec. 161.41(3), Stats., is a fine or a term of imprisonment in county jail. Sec. 939.61, Stats. For first offenders, conditional discharge is available. 3 An action for a violation of the Brookfield ordinance is a civil action, the penalty being a money forfeiture. 4
The county court granted Karpinski's motion to dismiss the criminal complaint, holding that Brookfield's ordinance was invalid under the Wisconsin constitution and the doctrine of preemption; that dual prosecution by the state and municipality violates the federal and state constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy; 5 that the ordinance is invalid as violative of equal protection and due process guarantees; and that sec. 66.051(4), Stats., 6 contravenes the state constitution. 7 The county court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding that the state did not come before the court with "clean hands." 8
The State appealed to the circuit court which reversed the county court order and reinstated the complaint. Karpinski appeals from the order of the circuit court, and we affirm the order of the circuit court.
On appeal Karpinski challenges the filing of the criminal charge against him on the single ground that the mere coexistence of a state statute and a municipal ordinance prohibiting the same conduct gives prosecutors unbridled discretion in the charging decision in violation of the equal protection or due process guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. 9 Karpinski has not attempted to prove a discriminatory prosecution defense, namely, that the decision to prosecute under the state statute or under the Brookfield ordinance is, in fact, based on impermissible prosecutorial considerations such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification. 10 Karpinski's brief states the issue as follows:
11
Support for Karpinski's contention is found in Justice Black's dissent in Berra v. United States, 351 U.S. 131, 135, 76 S.Ct. 685, 100 L.Ed. 1013 (1956):
The State asserts that the Waukesha county district attorney's discretion in the case at bar is not qualitatively different than that typically exercised by prosecutors in deciding (1) whether to prosecute and (2) under which of several criminal statutes to prosecute.
The instant case, argues the State, is an illustration of the generally accepted doctrine that the prosecutor has wide discretion in deciding whether to prosecute. The State says that in the case at bar the Waukesha county district attorney is performing the usual function of the office; the district attorney is deciding whether or not a charge should be filed under the state statute prohibiting the possession of marijuana.
This court has repeatedly emphasized that the prosecutor has great discretion in determining whether to commence a prosecution. While it is the prosecutor's duty to prosecute criminal actions, sec. 59.47, Stats., the prosecutor is not required to prosecute all cases in which it appears that the law has been violated. We have characterized the prosecutor's charging discretion as "quasi-judicial" in the sense that it is his duty to administer justice rather than to obtain convictions. 12
We have said that in general the prosecuting attorney is answerable to the people of the state and not to the courts or the legislature as to the way in which he exercises power to prosecute complaints. State ex rel. Kurkierewicz v. Cannon, 42 Wis.2d 368, 378, 166 N.W.2d 255 (1969); State v. Kenyon, 85 Wis.2d 36, 42, 45, 270 N.W.2d 160 (1978). Nevertheless, the charging decision of a district attorney is not unlimited; it has bounds.
In the criminal justice system there is at one and the same time the need for encouraging prosecutorial discretion to achieve flexibility and sensitivity and the need for circumscribing prosecutorial discretion to avoid arbitrary, discriminatory or oppressive results. One technique suggested to achieve both goals is administrative rule-making. Although the development of standards to structure and check the exercise of discretion in individual cases is a difficult task, prosecutors have been encouraged to formulate such standards. Davis, Discretionary Justice, 59, 232-233 (1969); Remington, Newman, Kimball, Melli and Goldstein, Criminal Justice Administration c. 6 (1969); Abrams, Internal Policy: Guiding the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion, 19 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 1 (1971); Breitel, Controls in Criminal Law Enforcement, 27 U.Chi.L.Rev. 427 (1960).
Guidelines for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion are explored in Standard 3.9 of the American Bar Association, Standards for Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function (Approved Draft 1971), to which this court has referred in prior cases.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Hamstead v. Dostert
...Commonwealth v. McKinney, 594 S.W.2d 884 (Ky.App.1979); People v. Evans, 94 Mich.App. 4, 287 N.W.2d 608 (1979); State v. Karpinski, 92 Wis.2d 599, 285 N.W.2d 729 (1979); State v. Worthey, 19 Wash.App. 283, 576 P.2d 896 (1978); Commonwealth v. United Food Corp., 374 Mass. 765, 374 N.E.2d 133......
-
State v. Braunsdorf
...discretion in the initiation of criminal proceedings. Sears v. State, 94 Wis.2d 128, 133, 287 N.W.2d 785 (1980); State v. Karpinski, 92 Wis.2d 599, 607-08, 285 N.W.2d 729 (1979). In English common law that discretion extended to the entry of a nolle prosequi or voluntary dismissal, 1 the us......
-
State v. Annala, 90-2162-CR
...whether to initiate prosecution in a particular case. Sears v. State, 94 Wis.2d 128, 133, 287 N.W.2d 785 (1980); State v. Karpinski, 92 Wis.2d 599, 607, 285 N.W.2d 729 (1979). Few limits are imposed upon the district attorney's prosecutorial discretion. It is an abuse of discretion for the ......
-
State v. Cissell
...involved statutes which were not co-extensive. The defendant also isolates language from our decision in State v. Karpinski, 92 Wis.2d 599, 611, n. 14, 285 N.W.2d 729 (1979), where we contrasted the Batchelder holding with our prior statement in State v. Roggensack, 15 Wis.2d 625, 633, 113 ......