Post v. State

222 N.W. 224, 197 Wis. 457, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 379
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 4, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 222 N.W. 224 (Post 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.

Bluebook
Post v. State, 222 N.W. 224, 197 Wis. 457, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 379 (Wis. 1928).

Opinion

The following opinion was filed December 4, 1928:

Eschweiler, J.

After the trial and sentence in this case, this court, in Glodowski v. State, 196 Wis. 265, 220 N. W. 227, held a search warrant similar in form to the one presented* here invalid because it appeared from the record that the judicial officer had before him no proper testimony on oath as a basis for its issuance. If the objection there interposed had been submitted to the court below here it would have required a similar ruling. The general rule, however, has long been recognized that certain constitutional, as well as statutory, rights and privileges are waived unless they are asserted at the proper time and in proper manner. It was so held as to arraignment and plea in Hack v. State, 141 Wis. 346, 353, 124 N. W. 492; as to place of trial and procedure, in Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249, 259, 126 N. W. 737, an exception, however, being recognized as to jury trials, State v. Smith, 184 Wis. 664, 669, 200 N. W. 638; as to search, in Reiser v. State, 190 Wis. 248, 250, 208 N. W. 797; as to self-incrimination, in State v. Lloyd, 152 Wis. 24, 29-31, 139 N. W. 514; and as to legislator’s privilege from arrest, in State ex rel. Isenring v. Polacheck, 101 Wis. 427, 432, 77 N. W. 708.

If such constitutional safeguards may be waived and the right to thereafter assert them wholly lost, it properly follows that a specific objection which might have been but [460]*460was not timely and properly asserted before the trial court, may be deemed waived if first asserted, as in the present case, on appeal.

We find no force in the other objection here urged and overruled in the court below to the proceeding to trial because of no preliminary examination as to the fourth charge in the information alleging a prior conviction and which first appeared in the record after plaintiff in error had been bound over to the circuit court. Watson v. State, 190 Wis. 245, 248, 208 N. W. 897. We find no grounds, therefore, for disturbing the rulings of the court below.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, without costs, on February 5, 1929.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Jensen
415 N.W.2d 519 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1987)
Hansen v. State
55 N.W.2d 6 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1952)
State v. Hoffman
2 N.W.2d 707 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1942)
Ciolocomio v. State
222 N.W. 825 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 N.W. 224, 197 Wis. 457, 1928 Wisc. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/post-v-state-wis-1928.