State v. Roggensack
Decision Date | 28 June 1963 |
Citation | 122 N.W.2d 408,20 Wis.2d 468 |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. Rolland R. ROGGENSACK, Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
R. R. Roggensack, Lancaster, in pro. per.
George Thompson, Atty. Gen., Wm. A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, William D. Byrne, Dist. Atty., Dane County, Madison, Donald R. McCallum, Deputy Dist. Atty., Madison, for respondent.
Sec. 71.11(42), Stats., provides:
'Any person, other than a corporation, who fails or refuses to make a return at the time hereinbefore specified in each year or shall render a false or fraudulent return shall upon conviction be fined not to exceed $500, or be imprisoned not to exceed one year, or both, at the discretion of the court, together with the cost of prosecution.'
CURRIE, HALLOWS and DIETERICH, JJ., are of the opinion that, as concluded by the learned circuit judge, an intent to evade tax liability is an essential element of the offense proscribed by sec. 71.11(42), Stats. They are of the opinion that there was no evidence from which it could be found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant acted with such intent. These justices would reverse the judgment.
BROWN, C. J., and FAIRCHILD and GORDON, JJ., are of the opinion that the offense proscribed by sec. 71.11(42), Stats., is complete upon failure or refusal to make a return at the time specified, whether or not the offender intends thereby to evade tax liability. These justices would affirm the judgment.
All six justices agree that there was no denial to defendant of equal protection of the law on the ground that other violators have not been prosecuted. The testimony shows that defendant was prosecuted because he was a flagrant delinquent and not because of any invidious selection or discrimination among those who had failed to file returns on time.
WILKIE, J., did not participate in the decision of this case. There being no majority for reversal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed under the established rule.
1 Certified questions in this action were answered by this court February 6, 1962. State v. Roggensack (1962), 15 Wis.2d 625, 113 N.W.2d 389, 114 N.W.2d 459.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Kleynerman
...(on appeal).46. Village of Brown Deer v. City of Milwaukee , 16 Wis.2d 206, 114 N.W.2d 493 (1962) (on appeal).47. State v. Roggensack , 20 Wis.2d 468, 122 N.W.2d 408 (1963) (on appeal).48. Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. McDowell , 25 Wis.2d 99, 130 N.W.2d 203 (1964) (on appeal).49. Graebner v. Wis. I......
-
Sears v. State
...under circumstances similar to the incident that is the basis of his prosecution. This court stated in State v. Roggensack, 20 Wis.2d 468, 470, 122 N.W.2d 408, 409 (1963), a criminal prosecution for failure to file income tax returns, that "there was no denial to defendant of equal protecti......