State v. Schultz
| Decision Date | 04 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2017AP1977-CR,2017AP1977-CR |
| Citation | 939 N.W.2d 519,2020 WI 24,390 Wis.2d 570 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alexander M. SCHULTZ, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Frederick A. Bechtold, Taylor Falls, Minnesota. There was an oral argument by Frederick A. Bechtold.
For the plaintiff-respondent, there was a brief filed by Scott E. Rosenow, assistant attorney general; with whom on the brief was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Scott E. Rosenow.
¶1 The State charged Alexander M. Schultz with repeated sexual assault of a child for engaging in sexual intercourse with the fifteen-year-old victim, M.T.,1 in "late summer to early fall of 2012." A jury acquitted him of this charge. Shortly thereafter, paternity test results revealed Schultz to be the father of M.T.'s child. The State then charged Schultz with sexual assault of a child under 16 years of age occurring "on or about October 19, 2012," the date M.T.'s obstetrician determined the child was conceived. We review whether the State exposed Schultz to multiple prosecutions for the same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Wisconsin Constitutions. Schultz asks us to consider whether a court may ascertain the scope of jeopardy in the first prosecution based upon trial testimony, as well as to determine who bears the burden resulting from any ambiguity in the timeframe of a charging document—the defendant or the State.2
¶2 We hold that a court may examine the entire record of the first proceeding, including the evidence admitted at trial, when determining the scope of jeopardy in a prior criminal prosecution. Because the complaint incorporated the police report, which documents a certain end date for the intercourse, and the evidence presented at Schultz's first trial did not encompass the same timeframe of the offense charged in his second prosecution, we conclude that Schultz was not twice in jeopardy for the same criminal offense. Specifically, the State's second prosecution of Schultz for sexual assault of a child under 16 "on or about October 19, 2012," did not include the same timeframe as its first prosecution for repeated sexual assault of a child in the "late summer to early fall of 2012." We affirm the court of appeals.
¶3 In December 2012, Merrill Police Officer Matthew Waid interviewed then-fifteen-year-old M.T. after learning she was pregnant. Waid learned that M.T. had sexual intercourse with a male named "Dominic" in early to mid-October. M.T. also informed Waid that she had sexual intercourse with Schultz "approximately one month before she had sexual intercourse with Dominic." M.T. confirmed that "she had her period between the time she had sexual intercourse with Alex" and when she had intercourse with Dominic in early to mid-October. When questioned by Waid, Schultz denied having a sexual relationship with M.T.
¶4 In January 2013, Officer Waid conducted two follow-up interviews with M.T. about her sexual relationship with Schultz. In the first, M.T. claimed she and Schultz had sexual intercourse more than five times, beginning in the middle of 2012 and lasting for a few months. Schultz was either 19 or 20 years old when the intercourse began. In the second, M.T. showed Waid Facebook messages between her and Schultz on September 3, 2012. In these messages, Schultz was angry and dismissive of M.T. because he believed that she was telling other people things that "can put me in prison." Based upon these messages, the interviews with M.T., and interviews with multiple witnesses who suggested knowledge of a sexual relationship between Schultz and M.T., Waid recommended charges against Schultz.
¶5 In April 2013, the State filed charges against Schultz in Lincoln County Circuit Court3 for repeated sexual assault of a child, a Class C felony.4 The complaint listed the timeframe for the assaults as "late summer to early fall of 2012." Because Schultz was a repeat criminal offender with three prior convictions, the State also charged him with a penalty enhancer pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 939.62(1)(c) (2017-18).5 The complaint "incorporated by reference" the entirety of Officer Waid's police report and attached his report to the complaint. The subsequent Information also listed "late summer to early fall of 2012" as the timeframe for the crime. During a pre-trial hearing, the parties agreed M.T.'s pregnancy was not pertinent to Schultz's trial because Dominic was presumed to be the child's father.6
¶6 Schultz's trial took place on January 21-22, 2014. During his opening statement, the prosecutor indicated the sexual relationship between Schultz and M.T. began in the "late summer of 2012." Consistent with the prosecutor's timeframe, M.T. testified she had sexual intercourse with Schultz starting around July or between July and August, and that she and Schultz broke up around the beginning of September 2012. On direct examination, M.T. confirmed she had sexual intercourse with Schultz in the month or so leading up to the beginning of October 2012. On cross-examination, she relayed the same information she initially told Officer Waid: she had sexual intercourse with Schultz approximately one month before she had intercourse with Dominic, the latter of which took place in early to mid-October. Later in her testimony, M.T. claimed she told a friend about her sexual relationship with Schultz, and that this conversation occurred "closer to October," after she had stopped seeing Schultz.
¶7 During his testimony, Officer Waid confirmed that in the course of his initial investigation, M.T. told him she had sexual intercourse with Schultz in the month or so prior to early October 2012. He also read Facebook messages between M.T. and Schultz from September 3, 2012. These messages confirmed M.T.'s testimony regarding the relationship with Schultz ending by early September. In the messages, Schultz stated "[U]r dead to me now" and "[I] was gonna try to get back with you[.]" While not explicitly mentioning a sexual relationship, Schultz accused M.T. of breaking a promise to him and telling people things that could send him to prison. M.T. responded that she "didnt tell anyone."
¶8 No evidence at trial indicated M.T. and Schultz had sexual intercourse in October 2012. One of Schultz's own witnesses, A.O., testified that she and Schultz were in a romantic relationship between September 2012 and the spring of 2013.
¶9 While instructing the jury, the circuit court reiterated that the timeframe alleged for the assaults was "late summer to early fall of 2012." In closing argument, the State argued the intercourse between Schultz and M.T. ended in September. In summarizing M.T.'s testimony regarding sexual intercourse with Schultz, the State specifically mentioned that M.T. indicated intercourse occurred in the month before October 2012; the assaults started in July and ended in September 2012; and the assaults happened during "September, August, and July." After deliberations, the jury acquitted Schultz of "repeated acts of sexual assault of a child as charged in the information," which had charged Schultz with this crime during the timeframe of "late summer to early fall of 2012."7
¶10 Five days after Schultz's acquittal, Officer Waid learned from Lincoln County Victim Services that M.T. had received her paternity test results. These results indicated a 99.99998 percent certainty that Schultz, not Dominic, was the father of M.T.'s baby. Although incarcerated at the time, Schultz participated in a phone interview with Waid about the statements from his previous trial and his relationship with M.T. Schultz continued to deny having sexual intercourse with M.T. at any point during 2012. After receiving authorization from M.T. and her mother, Waid contacted M.T.'s obstetrician to obtain information regarding the date of conception. M.T.'s obstetrician informed Waid that the conception date for the baby was October 19, 2012.
¶11 In March 2014, the State filed charges against Schultz in Lincoln County Circuit Court.8 Count 3 charged Schultz with sexual assault of a child under 16 years of age, a Class C felony, "on or about October 19, 2012."9 The State again charged Schultz with a penalty enhancer for being a repeat criminal offender, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 939.62(1)(c). The complaint incorporated Officer Waid's police report detailing his investigation, which was attached to the complaint.
¶12 Schultz moved to dismiss Count 3, arguing it violated his constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Because "fall" started on September 22, 2012, and October 19, 2012 fell within the first thirty days after the September equinox, Schultz argued the date alleged for his second sexual assault charge—"on or about October 19, 2012"—fell within the timeframe alleged for his first charge, which included "early fall." The circuit court denied Schultz's motion because it found no evidence of any assault in October in the first prosecution for repeated sexual assault of a child. The circuit court found, based on the testimony adduced in the first trial, that "late summer to early fall of 2012" meant July, August, and September 2012, but not October 19, 2012.
¶13 Schultz thereafter pled guilty to Counts 1 and 3—perjury and sexual assault of a child under 16 years of age, respectively. The circuit court sentenced Schultz to two years of initial confinement plus two years of extended supervision for perjury, and five years of initial confinement plus five years of extended supervision for the sexual assault against M.T., both sentences to run concurrently.
¶14 Schultz moved for postconviction relief, again raising the double jeopardy argument he set forth in his motion to dismiss....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fabick v. Evers
..."read[ing] words into the statute that the legislature did not write" could the majority reach the result it wants. Cf. State v. Schultz, 2020 WI 24, ¶52, 390 Wis. 2d 570, 939 N.W.2d 519. Not only is Executive Order #105 improperly before the court, the specific remedy Fabick seeks on that ......
-
State v. Killian
...and therefore violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, when the offenses in both prosecutions are 'identical in the law and in fact.'" Schultz, 390 Wis.2d 570, (quoting State v. Van Meter, 72 Wis.2d 754, 758, 242 N.W.2d 206 (1976)). Two offenses are not "identical in law" where "each provision r......
-
State v. Green
...Principles ¶25 The right against double jeopardy has been characterized as a "universal maxim" of a fair justice system. See State v. Schultz, 2020 WI 24, ¶19, 390 570, 939 N.W.2d 524 (quoting 4 William Blackstone, Commentaries *335). It is protected by the Fifth Amendment, which provides, ......
-
Wilson v. Boughton
...a child, especially one with special needs suffering from repeated acts of sexual abuse across several homes. Cf. State v. Schultz , 390 Wis.2d 570, 939 N.W.2d 519, 538 (2020) ("[C]hildren are often incapable of remembering traumatic incidents by the day, week, or month ...."); State v. Faw......