State v. Leach

Decision Date28 June 1985
Docket NumberNos. 83-2326-CR,s. 83-2326-CR
Citation124 Wis.2d 648,370 N.W.2d 240
PartiesSTATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. William LEACH, Defendant-Appellant. to 83-2329-CR.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

Thomas J. Balistreri, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, for plaintiff-respondent-petitioner; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief.

Donald T. Lang, Asst. State Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.

STEINMETZ, Justice.

Two issues are raised by the state:

(1) May a court properly direct a verdict against a criminal defendant on the issue of mental disease or defect?

(2) May the improper joinder of criminal charges for trial ever be harmless error?

The defendant raises two more issues:

(1) Was the defendant denied due process when he was compelled to proceed to trial while claiming amnesia?

(2) Was the defendant denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel on the attempted murder charge due to trial counsel's failure to request a lesser offense instruction on endangering safety by conduct regardless of life?

The circuit court for Milwaukee county, the Honorable Michael J. Barron, determined that it was proper to direct a verdict against the defendant when no reasonable jury could have found that he was legally suffering from mental disease or defect. The court of appeals interpreted State v. Bergenthal, 47 Wis.2d 668, 178 N.W.2d 16 (1970), cert. denied 402 U.S. 972, 91 S.Ct. 1657, 29 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971), to mean that the issue of mental disease or defect may never be taken from the jury. The court of appeals further held that improper joinder is not subject to the harmless error rule. Therefore, on both issues the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. On those two issues we disagree with the court of appeals. Also, the court of appeals ruled against the defendant's claims of incompetent counsel and of being required to proceed to trial while allegedly suffering from amnesia, and we agree with the decision of the court of appeals as to these two issues raised by the defendant. 1

William Leach was charged in four separate complaints filed February 5, 8 and 9, 1982, with four counts of armed robbery and one count each of attempted murder, attempted armed robbery and false imprisonment, stemming from four historically distinct incidents. Following a single preliminary examination on March 2, 1982, four informations were filed charging the same counts. The defendant pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect to all charges.

At the arraignment the district attorney moved to join all the various counts for trial. Although the transcripts indicate the trial court deferred a decision on the motion, the judgment roll reflects that the motion was granted. Unfortunately, no record was made as to the trial court's reasoning in granting the joinder motion, but in this case the state conceded at oral argument that the joinder was done in error.

A consolidated trial on all counts commenced November 29, 1982. Before the first witness was called, defense counsel orally moved for severance of the charges. The trial court denied the motion, saying the issue had been resolved when the state asked for joinder. At the close of the guilt phase of the trial, the jury found the defendant had committed all seven of the offenses with which he was charged.

After the defendant presented his evidence at the second phase of the bifurcated trial, the court directed a verdict against him on the issue of mental disease or defect.

A factual description of the offenses with which the defendant was charged is necessary. On January 7, 1982, the defendant picked up Stanley Blalock and drove to 3424 North 12th Street in Milwaukee. They stayed there for a short time. Some time later that day, Blalock and the defendant burglarized a home taking among other things a color television set. They returned to the North 12th Street apartment where the defendant argued with Blalock and accused him of appropriating the proceeds of the crime. The defendant left and returned 15 to 20 minutes later.

Sometime in the early morning hours of January 8, 1982, Blalock asked the defendant if he could retrieve his boots from the defendant's car. Blalock testified the defendant had a "strange" look on his face, "as if he was up to something." The defendant and Blalock went to defendant's car and as Blalock reached into the car, the defendant shot him in the back. Blalock pulled back and asked what he was doing, whereby the defendant responded "you know what I am doing." Blalock lunged at the defendant. Because his left hand was paralyzed from the wound, Blalock hit the defendant with his right hand. The defendant then shot Blalock in the shoulder. Blalock pushed the defendant back and ran. The defendant shot him again, hitting him in the right thigh. Blalock ran into a house across the street and told them what had happened. The next thing Blalock remembered was the inside of the ambulance.

Blalock was hospitalized for about two weeks. The doctors decided not to try to remove the bullet from his back because it was lodged too close to a blood vessel leading to his heart.

On January 29, 1982, Gregory Greenwood, a friend and two young women were out on a double date. At approximately 11:30 p.m., Greenwood parked his father's automobile on the northwest side of Milwaukee in an area commonly used by high school students for socializing. A short time later the two females left the car. As the females were returning to the car, they were approached by the defendant and asked what they were doing there. One of the girls stated they were not doing anything and started to walk away from the defendant, but he followed them. Because the two females did not want to get their dates in trouble, they decided not to return to the car. Greenwood testified he saw the two females followed by the defendant walking a short ways away not returning to the car but proceeding down the road. Greenwood became concerned and called to the females to come back. He approached the two young women and the defendant and asked what was going on. The defendant said nothing was going on, pulled out a gun and ordered them into the car.

The defendant instructed Greenwood to drive. At various times the defendant told Greenwood to stop the car. At one point the defendant told Greenwood to stop the car and pointing the revolver at Greenwood's head, demanded money from those in the car. They claimed they had no money and the defendant searched the females' purses. The defendant then told them they had three seconds to come up with some money. Fearing for their lives, Greenwood and his companions gave the defendant most of their cash.

The defendant then ordered Greenwood to keep driving, periodically telling Greenwood to stop the car. About two hours after they first met, the defendant ordered the driver to stop the car and all its passengers out. The defendant took the car and Greenwood went to the nearest house to call the police.

On February 6, 1982, Mrs. Shang Yu Huei Lee was working as desk clerk at the North Shore Inn in Glendale awaiting the arrival of the usual desk clerk. The defendant, having stayed at the hotel for three days, entered the hotel lobby. Conversation took place; the defendant left and returned sometime later. He approached the desk and pointed a gun at Mrs. Lee's head and demanded the motel's money. She opened the cash register and handed him its contents. At that point, one of the maids entered the lobby. The defendant demanded more money. Mrs. Lee opened another money drawer and handed the defendant its cash. The defendant ordered Mrs. Lee and the maid into the office closet.

Shortly thereafter, Dale Tech reported for duty as desk clerk. Upon entering the lobby, the defendant pointed his gun at Tech and asked whether he had a car and where it was parked. Tech responded he had a car and it was in the parking lot. The defendant reached into Tech's pocket, took his wallet and instructed Tech to pick up the defendant's bags and go to the car. On the way out, the defendant ripped the phone lines out of the motel room and off the switchboard and handset.

When they got to the car, the defendant put his luggage into the trunk and told Tech to drive. Still pointing his gun at Tech, the two drove for some time. The defendant then told Tech to stop the car and get into the trunk. Tech refused three times claiming it was too cold and that he had cooperated with the defendant and the defendant should cooperate with him. The defendant told Tech he had shot people before and again ordered Tech to the trunk. Tech again refused and the defendant allowed him to lie on the floor in the back seat. The defendant proceeded to drive the car and finally parked it in a garage at 3323 North 22nd Street. The defendant exited the car, removed his luggage and instructed Tech to remain in the car for ten minutes. The defendant then threw the keys up onto the opened garage door. Tech waited ten minutes, retrieved his car keys and notified the police of what had just happened.

Two days later, at approximately 11:55 p.m. on February 8, 1982, the defendant entered the Park Avenue Nightclub. He entered the upstairs office, pulled a gun on the secretary in the outer office, and ordered her into the manager's office. The general manager, David Watt, testified the defendant waived his gun in his face and told him and the secretary to lie on the floor.

The defendant asked Watt where the money was and he answered it was in the next office. The defendant told Watt to get up and take him there. The defendant, Watt and his secretary entered the small room whereupon the defendant ordered Watt to open the safe. Watt complied and the secretary proceeded to put the paper currency from the safe into the defendant's folder. She finished putting the money into the folder and Watt offered it to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
127 cases
  • State v. Grant
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1987
    ...is a much better test than reasonable possibility." Dyess, 124 Wis.2d at 553, 370 N.W.2d 222. See also, State v. Leach, 124 Wis.2d 648, 674, n. 10, 370 N.W.2d 240 (1985).2 For example, in Allison v. State, 62 Wis.2d 14, 29, 214 N.W.2d 437 (1974), this court, dealing with a constitutional er......
  • State v. Morgan, 93-2611-CR
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Court of Appeals
    • June 20, 1995
    ...that required for the admission of evidence on the general question of insanity"). As the supreme court stated in State v. Leach, 124 Wis.2d 648, 370 N.W.2d 240 (1985): The principal purpose of bifurcation is to withhold from the jury, while it debates the question of guilt or innocence, ev......
  • Morgan v. Krenke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • November 9, 1999
    ...without compromising his ability to contest the issue of guilt. Morgan, 195 Wis.2d at 407, 536 N.W.2d 425 (citing State v. Leach, 124 Wis.2d 648, 662, 370 N.W.2d 240 (1985) (internal citations 18. It is worth noting that Hebard, a case which continues to be cited for its argument that "fund......
  • State v. Burton
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • July 10, 2013
    ...guilty because insane or feeble-minded. 15. This court reiterated the policy of avoiding confusion and prejudice in State v. Leach, 124 Wis.2d 648, 370 N.W.2d 240 (1985): The issue of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is tried separately from the question of whether the defen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT