Surma v. State
| Decision Date | 08 January 1952 |
| Citation | 260 Wis. 510,51 N.W.2d 47 |
| Parties | SURMA et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Under date of August 6, 1951, the two plaintiffs in error (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants'), were adjudged guilty by the trial court upon the verdict of the jury of the crime of wilfully, maliciously and wantonly, killing, maiming, mutilating and disfiguring a dog in violation of sec. 343.47(1), Stats., and one of the plaintiffs in error was sentenced to a term in the county jail and the other to a term in the Wisconsin state reformatory. The case comes before this court upon a writ of error to review such judgment.
Allan Cain, Kaukauna, for plaintiffs in error.
Vernon W. Thomson, Atty. Gen., Wm. A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., O. Strossenreuther, Dist. Atty., Shawano, for defendant in error.
It is the contention of the defendants that they are entitled to a new trial because the bailiff placed in charge of the jury during its deliberations was a deputy sheriff who had been one of the arresting officers and one of the officers who had obtained an alleged confession from the defendants, and had also been one of the witnesses who testified in behalf of the state at the trial.
During the time that the case was entrusted to the jury, the members of the jury were taken to supper in a public eating place. The bailiff during this meal was seated at the table at which the male jurors ate while the bailiff's wife, who was in charge of the lady jurors, was seated at the table at which the lady jurors ate. There is nothing in the record to indicate that either the bailiff or his wife said anything to the jurors during the meal, or at any other time prior to the return of the verdict, concerning the case. Counsel who appeared for the defendants at the trial was not a resident of Shawano county, and at the time that the trial court had the clerk administer the oath to the bailiff who was to have the custody of the jury defendants' counsel did not recognize the bailiff as having been one of the persons who had testified in behalf of the prosecution. Consequently no objection was raised until after the jury had returned their verdict.
In the case of La Valley v. State, 1925, 188 Wis. 68, 205 N.W. 412, which involved a criminal prosecution for rape, the trial was adjourned in the evening after counsel for the defense had concluded his argument to the jury, and later in the evening one of the jurors drove to a dance some ten or twelve miles from the courthouse in the automobile of the sheriff, the juror riding in the rear seat and the sheriff in the front seat. At the dance the juror danced once with the sheriff's wife and rather early in the evening returned to the county seat with two friends in another automobile. Nothing was said between the sheriff and the juror concerning the pending case on the trip to the dance, or while at the dance, and apparently the sheriff had not been a witness at the trial.
Mr. Justice Owen, in his opinion in La Valley v. State, supra [188 Wis. 68,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ford
...must be kept pure, and untainted not only from all improper influences but from the appearance thereof." Id. ¶ 39 In Surma v. State, 260 Wis. 510, 51 N.W.2d 47 (1952), the bailiff in charge of the jury during deliberations was an arresting officer, had helped obtain a confession from the de......
-
Cullen v. State
...of actual or attempted influence upon the jury. State v. Cotter (1952), 262 Wis. 168, 54 N.W.2d 43, 41 A.L.R.2d 222; Surma v. State (1952), 260 Wis. 510, 51 N.W.2d 47. See also La Valley v. State (1925), 188 Wis. 68, 205 N.W. 412. In the Cotter Case, the conviction was reversed, with the co......
-
State v. Burton
...After Wiedenhaupt the court also briefly applied the Havenor rule to communications between a sheriff and the jury. Surma v. State, 260 Wis. 510, 51 N.W.2d 47 (1952); State v. Cotter, 262 Wis. 168, 54 N.W.2d 43 Apparently unconvinced by its distinction in Wiedenhaupt, though, the court aban......
-
State v. Halmo
...But it will remain so only so long as public confidence in the institution prevails. [Emphasis in original.] Surma v. State, 260 Wis. 510, 512, 51 N.W.2d 47, 49 (1952), quoting La Valley v. State, 188 Wis. 68, 80, 205 N.W. 412, 417 Where the jury is allowed to separate after it has started ......