State v. Roggensack
| Decision Date | 03 April 1962 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Rolland R. ROGGENSACK, Defendant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., Harold H. Persons, William A. Platz, Asst. Attys. Gen., William D. Byrne, Dist. Atty., Donald R. McCallum, Deputy Dist. Atty., Madison, for plaintiff.
John T. Harrington, Madison, E. J. Morse, Jr., Lancaster, for defendant.
We are not persuaded by defendant's arguments, on this motion, challenging our answers to the questions certified. We deem it appropriate, however, to make this comment in view of defendant's suggestion that a defendant may properly 'complain that the process by which he was selected [for prosecution] violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.' Whether or not such a complaint is supported by the record in this case was not put before us by the questions of law certified. Those questions were, in substance, whether sec. 71.11(41), Stats., is to be construed as authorizing a civil action independent of a criminal action under sec. 71.11(42) and whether the existence of sec. 71.11(41) renders sec. 71.11(42) unconstitutional as a violation of due process of law or a denial of equal protection of the laws. A question of fact cannot be certified to this court. 1
Sub. (3) of sec. 958.08, Stats., under which the questions were certified, provides in part: Although our answers to the questions certified will constitute the law of the case, 2 if, after judgment, defendant claims that his conviction and the judgment thereon are erroneous for reasons not covered by these answers, he will have his remedy by writ of error, or appeal. 3
Motion for rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cissell
...where we contrasted the Batchelder holding with our prior statement in State v. Roggensack, 15 Wis.2d 625, 633, 113 N.W.2d 389, 114 N.W.2d 459 (1962), that if two statutes make the same conduct " '[T]heir coexistence would violate constitutional requirements of due process of law and of equ......
-
State v. Karpinski
...by the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution."In State v. Roggensack, 15 Wis.2d 625, 634, 113 N.W.2d 389, 394, 114 N.W.2d 459 (1962), Justice Dieterich (dissenting) objected to the prosecution being able to determine whether to bring a civil or criminal action:"The provisio......
-
Harris v. State
...due process. State v. Coubal, 248 Wis. 247, 21 N.W.2d 381 (1946) . . ." State v. Roggensack, 15 Wis.2d 625, 633, 113 N.W.2d 389, 394, 114 N.W.2d 459 (1962). But defendant also asserts that the coexistence of the abduction, kidnapping and false imprisonment statutes gave the prosecutor exces......
-
State v. Chacon
...act may constitute different crimes with similar but not identical elements. State v. Roggensack (1962), 15 Wis.2d 625, 113 N.W.2d 389, 114 N.W.2d 459. This court recently reviewed the cases and rationale involved in includable crimes. State v. Melvin (1970), 49 Wis.2d 246, 181 N.W.2d 490. ......