State v. Konkol
| Decision Date | 31 March 1936 |
| Citation | 221 Wis. 184,266 N.W. 174 |
| Parties | STATE v. KONKOL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Certification of questions for answer by the Circuit Court for Portage County; Byron B. Park, Judge Presiding.
The questions are not answered.
Prosecution for violation of section 348.28, Stats., was commenced in the circuit court for Portage county on March 22, 1935. Defendant demurred to the information upon the ground that it failed to state a crime. The demurrer was overruled, and, upon defendant's refusal to enter a plea, the trial court by direction entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf. At the close of the state's case, defendant moved for a dismissal, which was denied. The trial court, before finding the defendant guilty, being of the opinion that there had arisen a question of law so important and doubtful as to require a decision of the Supreme Court thereon and the defendant having in open court requested that certain questions of law be certified to the Supreme Court, certified the following questions:
(1) Should the defendant, John J. Konkol, be found guilty on the first and second counts of the information and be sentenced?
(2) Should the defendant, John J. Konkol, be found guilty on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh counts of the information and be sentenced?
The facts material to a disposition of the case will be stated in the opinion.
James E. Finnegan, Atty. Gen., and J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
W. E. Atwell, of Stevens Point, for defendant.
As indicated by the certified questions, the information contained seven counts. The first count charges that defendant, being at that time town chairman of the town of Stockton, had in his private employ one Victor Sankey; that defendant caused to be delivered to Sankey a town order directing the treasurer of the town of Stockton to pay to Sankey the sum of $6 of the town funds in payment for services rendered by Sankey to defendant personally and not for services rendered to the town of Stockton. This act is charged to constitute a violation of the provision of section 348.28, Stats. The other counts are identical except that each count relates to a different town order. Hence it will not be necessary to summarize the remaining counts. The certification contains a statement by the trial court of the facts proved at the trial. From this statement it appears that the orders involved in counts 1 and 2, while apparently issued to Sankey and indorsed by him, were in fact never delivered to Sankey or cashed by him. It further appears that, upon a settlement between the town and defendant shortly after his arrest, these orders were credited to the town. The orders involved in the remaining five counts were actually delivered to, and cashed by, Sankey. All of the orders were credited to the town in a settlement had with the town on March 26, 1935, four days after defendant's arrest. It appears from this settlement that, after crediting all of these orders to the town, defendant was still entitled to the sum of $35 as a balance owing to him. The statement of facts concludes with the following: “The Court being of the opinion that there has arisen in this case a question of law, which is so important and so doubtful as to require the decision of the Supreme Court thereon before finding the defendant guilty, or imposing any sentence against the defendant, and the defendant having in open court requested that the said questions of law be certified to the Supreme Court. * * *” The questions heretofore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Wis. v. Henley, 2008AP697-CR.
...questions when we accept a certification, but generally there should be a good reason for not doing so. See, e.g., State v. Konkol, 221 Wis. 184, 266 N.W. 174 (1936) (refusing to answer a certified question where we determined that jurisdiction was lacking). ¶ 137 In this case, where the ma......
- Larson v. State ex rel. Bennett
-
State v. Nall
...of law only.’' To the same effect as to the meaning of the term ‘question of law’ is the following statement in State v. Konkol, 221 Wis. 184, 187, 266 N.W. 174, 175, ‘* * * if there is involved in these certified questions any issue with respect to the intent of this defendant, as seems to......
-
State v. Roggensack
...not covered by these answers, he will have his remedy by writ of error, or appeal. 3 Motion for rehearing denied. 1 State v. Konkol (1936), 221 Wis. 184, 187, 266 N.W. 174.2 See Nichols v. City of Bridgeport (1858), 27 Conn. 459.3 Sec. 958.13, ...