Wirth v. State, S
| Decision Date | 06 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. S,S |
| Citation | 55 Wis.2d 11,197 N.W.2d 731 |
| Parties | Kaaren E. WIRTH, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. tate 12. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
The plaintiff in error, Kaaren E. Wirth, 1 hereinafter defendant, was found guilty by the court, without a jury, of a violation of secs. 161.02(1) and 161.08(2)(f), Stats., on July 21, 1970. She was sentenced to two years at the women's prison at Taycheedah but execution of sentence was stayed and she was placed on probation for two years. Probation was subsequently stayed pending appeal.
Chapter 161, Stats., regulates narcotics and dangerous substances. The defendant was charged and convicted of having purchased and possessed more than four ounces of medication containing the narcotic drug codeine within a forty-eight hour period contrary to statutory regulations.
Defendant obtained this writ of error to challenge the judgment of conviction.
Facts will be set forth in the opinion.
Campbell, Brennan, Steil & Ryan, James E. Welker, Janesville, for plaintiff in error.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Michael R. Klos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for defendant in error.
The defendant contends it was error to allow a pharmacist-witness to testify as to the contents of a container from the label upon the ground that it was hearsay and that without this evidence there was insufficient proof as to the purchase of a narcotic.
The statutes we are primarily concerned with are as follows:
'161.08 Preparations exempted . . .
'(2) The exemption authorized by this section shall be subject to the following conditions: . . .
'(f) That no person shall purchase more than 4 ounces of such preparation within a 48-hour period without the authorization of a physician, dentist or veterinarian nor may more than 4 ounces be in the possession of any person other than a physician, dentist, veterinarian or pharmacist, at any time without the authorization of a physcian, dentist or veterinarian.'
On March 21, 1970, the defendant, a resident of Madison, purchased a four-ounce bottle of a liquid medication, a codeinetype cough syrup, with the brand and label name 'Cosanyl,' from a pharmacist at Reliable Drugs in Janesville, Wisconsin. On the same day, March 21, 1970, the defendant purchased a second four-ounce bottle of Cosanyl at another drugstore--Hall Pharmacy in Janesville. In both stores she signed the narcotics register in the presence of the pharmacist as required by law. The defendant did not have a prescription from a physician or dentist so as to exempt her from the statutes quoted above.
A Mr. John Hall, the owner of Hall's Pharmacy, and a registered pharmacist of several years standing, testified that he personally made the sale of Cosanyl to the defendant; that Cosanyl was kept in the prescription room where all exempt narcotics are kept; that it was sold to her in an original four-ounce sealed bottle which was prepackaged and sealed by a pharmaceutical manufacturer, Parke-Davis, and that Cosanyl contained codeine which is a narcotic derivative of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huntington, 96-1775
...other exceptions, was clear and fairly easy to satisfy based on sufficient surrounding circumstances. For example, in Wirth v. State, 55 Wis.2d 11, 197 N.W.2d 731 (1972), this court concluded that a prepackaged, sealed bottle of codeine-type cough syrup was admissible to prove the contents ......
-
Ledford v. State, A99A0735.
...Id. at 1113. In the instant case, the label on the can was the sole evidence offered to prove the contents of the can. Wirth v. State, 55 Wis.2d 11, 197 N.W.2d 731 (1972), focused on a State statute requiring that a pharmacist maintain a narcotics registry and label any container for a narc......
-
State v. Huntington, No. 96-1775-CR96-1775-CR (Wis. 3/20/1998), 96-1775-CR96-1775-CR.
...other exceptions, was clear and fairly easy to satisfy based on sufficient surrounding circumstances. For example, in Wirth v. State, 55 Wis. 2d 11, 197 N.W.2d 731 (1972), this court concluded that a prepackaged, sealed bottle of codeine-type cough syrup was admissible to prove the contents......
-
State v. Heuser
...Ill. Dec. 390, 782 N.E.2d at 954; accord In re T.D., 71 Ill.Dec. 20, 450 N.E.2d at 458; Mitchell, 246 N.E.2d at 589; Wirth v. State, 55 Wis.2d 11, 197 N.W.2d 731, 733 (1972). The labels found on the boxes and batteries were properly admitted into evidence under the "market reports, commerci......