State v. Williams, S

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Citation47 Wis.2d 242,177 N.W.2d 611
Docket NumberNo. S,S
PartiesSTATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. David WILLIAMS, Appellant. tate 96.
Decision Date02 June 1970

Page 611

177 N.W.2d 611
47 Wis.2d 242
STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent,
v.
David WILLIAMS, Appellant.
No. State 96.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
June 2, 1970.
Dissenting Opinion July 1, 1970.

[47 Wis.2d 244]

Page 613

On October 30, 1968, a jury returned a verdict finding the defendant, David Williams, guilty of possession of marijuana contrary to sec. 161.275, Stats. The proceedings culminating in defendant's conviction began on October 10, 1967, when Lt. Ray Lichtie of the La Crosse police department sought a warrant for the arrest of James Herbage, the defendant's roommate, for violation of sec. 161.275. Upon Lichtie's complaint and after a hearing before Leonard F. Roraff, Judge of La Crosse county court, an arrest warrant was issued. That evening, at approximately 8:30 p.m. the warrant for Herbage was executed at his apartment. Upon entry, police found Herbage, Sedley Huwald, and the defendant, Williams, in the bedroom. Herbage was sitting on the bed with a tinfoil package on his lap containing what appeared to be marijuana. It was later determined that the packet in fact contained marijuana. Herbage was arrested on the warrant. Huwald and the defendant [47 Wis.2d 245] were arrested on the basis of their proximity to Herbage and the tinfoil package on Herbage's lap. A patrick Boutch was in the kitchen of the two--room apartment at the time of the officers' arrival and was also arrested. Immediately upon taking the arrested parties from the apartment, police began to search the apartment, finding additional quantities of suspected marijuana in a closet, under the kitchen sink, and in the kitchen stove.

The following morning, after signing a Miranda waiver and prior to an initial appearance, the defendant was interrogated. Upon being confronted with the results of the apartment search, he admitted the marijuana found under the sink was his and had been acquired when he and his roommate, Herbage, harvested the wild plant in an Illinois field. A complaint was issued charging the defendant with possession of marijuana for smoking purposes.

A preliminary hearing held on October 19, 1967, before Judge Roraff found probable cause for the bindovers of both the defendant and Herbage. At the outset of this hearing, defendant's counsel orally moved the court for dismissal for want of jurisdiction over the defendant because of the invalidity of the Herbage arrest warrant. This objection was renewed at the close of the preliminary, but the court ordered bindover to the circuit court for LaCrosse county without commenting upon the question of jurisdiction.

Prior to arraignment, defendant's counsel filed a written motion for dismissal contesting the court's jurisdiction 'because of defects in institution of proceedings.' The specific grounds for the motion were that the warrant for the arrest of Herbage was not based upon probable cause and that, since the unauthorized apartment entry by the police upon that warrant created the situation wherein the defendant was observed in the probable commission of a crime, the defendant's arrest was illegal. A motion for change of venue was filed pursuant[47 Wis.2d 246] to sec. 261.08, Stats., based upon an affidavit of prejudice against Lincoln Neprud, the circuit judge for LaCrosse county. At the arraignment on October 23, 1967, defendant stood mute, and Judge Neprud entered a plea of not guilty and

Page 614

stated that the defendant was not waiving 'any of his rights for numerous motions.' Thereafter, Judge Albert L. Twesme was appointed to try the case.

On January 17, 1968, a hearing was held on defendant's prearraignment motion to dismiss. The motion was denied by an order dated February 20, 1968. The defendant had filed additional motions on January 17, 1968, but they were not heard until August 9, 1968. These motions sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction due to an illegal arrest and an improperly conducted preliminary hearing. In addition, motions were made to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the illegal arrest and search and all statements obtained in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Except for the motion for the suppression of the statements, which was held to be premature, the motions were denied by order dated August 14, 1968.

On August 26, 1968, a motion and supporting affidavit for change of venue due to the prejudice of Judge Twesme was filed. The motion was heard and denied on September 20, 1968. On October 21, 1968, a Goodchild hearing was held to determine the voluntariness of statements made by the defendant during his interrogation the morning following his arrest. At the same time, defendant moved for discovery and a 'bill of particulars' to make the information more definite and certain. The latter motions were denied by decision of the court dated October 22, 1968. The Goodchild hearing resulted in the court finding the defendant's statements voluntary.

On October 24, 1968, defendant filed his motion to challenge the jury array. While a hearing was held the [47 Wis.2d 247] same day, the motion was not decided until the close of the trial, at which time it was denied. Trial commenced on October 25, 1968, and on October 30, 1968, the jury returned its verdict of guilty. On November 14, 1968, the court found the defendant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a three-year term at the Green Bay State Reformatory. The sentence was stayed, and the defendant was placed on five years probation. Appeal is taken from the November 14, 1968, judgment of conviction.

Arneson, Berg & Doyle, Ltd., patrick R. Doyle, La. Crosse, for appellant.

Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Betty R. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, Burleigh Randolph, Dist. Atty., La Crosse, for respondent.

HEFFERNAN, Justice.

The defendant has raised 22 questions for appellate resolution. The first 10 questions challenge the trial court's jurisdiction over his person, and, in the main, contest the legality of his arrest. The remaining 12 raise questions regarding the reasonableness of the apartment search and marijuana seizure, the propriety of denying a motion for a second change of venue, the admissibility of inculpatory statements made the day following defendant's arrest, the propriety of the state's cross-examination of the defendant, and the procedure used in selecting the jury. If the initiation of the proceedings was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • State v. Drogsvold, 80-1409-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
    • September 25, 1981
    .......         The Madison Police Department files contained several criminal offense reports involving defendant, the latest of which was November 1977. The reports pertained mostly to fights, some with weapons. 2 .         A black male, Ollie Williams, reportedly had an argument with the victim shortly before the victim's death. The police sought Williams during the investigation to arrest or question him. .         Six officers were dispatched about 12:30 a. m. that night to arrest defendant. They arrived at defendant's home just ......
  • State v. Arias
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • July 9, 2008
    ...... See, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶ 15, 274 Wis.2d 540, 683 N.W.2d 1; State v. Guzman, 166 Wis.2d 577, 586-87, 480 N.W.2d 446 (1992); State v. Williams, 47 Wis.2d 242, 249, 177 N.W.2d 611 (1970). Our coordination of Article I, § 11 with the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence began long before we were required to follow the Supreme Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence by its decision in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 ......
  • State v. Felix, 2010AP346–CR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 3, 2012
    ......The exclusionary rule provides for the suppression of evidence that “is in some sense the product of the illegal governmental activity.” State v. Knapp, 2005 WI 127, ¶ 22, 285 Wis.2d 86, 700 N.W.2d 899 (quoting Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444, 104 S.Ct. 2501, 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984)). “The primary purpose of the exclusionary rule ‘is to deter future unlawful police conduct.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 347, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974)). It is a judicially-created rule ......
  • State v. Cheers, 79-1454-CR
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • June 15, 1981
    ...... Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162 (45 S.Ct. 280, 288, 69 L.Ed. 543).' " .         This court has also held that a finding of "(p)robable cause for an arrest is less than that required for a bindover .." State v. Williams, 47 Wis.2d 242, 248, 177 N.W.2d 611 (1970). See also: Hills v. State, 93 Wis.2d 139, 145, 286 N.W.2d 356 (1980). .         As recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 176, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1312, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949), the probable cause ......
  • 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