Howard v. State
This text of 89 N.W. 110 (Howard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiff in error was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and was sentenced to imprisonment at Waupun. He had no means, and counsel was appointed to defend him in the trial court, but the appointment was limited to the trial term. A writ of error was sued out of this court, and a motion made in the trial court that counsel be appointed to represent the accused in this court, which motion was denied, although it was admitted that the plaintiff in error was still destitute of means. < Motion is now made in this court that counsel be appointed to prosecute the writ of error.
It has been deliberately held by this court in at least two recent eases not only that this court will not appoint counsel for indigent persons charged with crime, but that sec. 4113, Stats. 1898, confers no such power upon this court. However'we might be inclined to view the question, were it an original proposition, we do not feel inclined to change a rule which has become so well settled. McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407; Baker v. State, 84 Wis. 584.
Motion denied.’
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
89 N.W. 110, 113 Wis. 248, 1902 Wisc. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-wis-1902.