State Ex Rel. Offerdahl v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Offerdahl v. State

116 N.W.2d 809, 17 Wis. 2d 334

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 13, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 116 N.W.2d 809 (State Ex Rel. Offerdahl 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

State Ex Rel. Offerdahl v. State, 116 N.W.2d 809, 17 Wis. 2d 334 (Wis. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Relator submitted to the jurisdiction of the circuit court by making his motion to dismiss in that court. Having done so, he can no longer seek habeas corpus to test the sufficiency of the evidence at the preliminary examination. The order denying such motion is a non-appealable order. State v. Leikness (August Term, 1960, State No. 33, decided March 7, 1961), unreported.

The issue raised with respect to the failure to provide relator with separate counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing is without merit. There is no constitutional right to be provided with counsel at a preliminary hearing arising under the United States constitution. Odell v. Burke (7th Cir. 1960), 281 Fed. (2d) 782, certiorari denied, 364 U. S. 875, 81 Sup. Ct 119, 5 L. Ed. (2d) 96. Neither does such a right exist under sec. 7, art. I, Wis. Const., because a preliminary hearing is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of this constitutional provision. Hawk v. State (1949), 151 Neb. 717, 39 N. W. (2d) 561, 567; cf. State ex rel. Kennon v. Hanley (1946), 249 Wis. 399, 401, 24 N. W. (2d) 683. Sec. 957.26, Stats., does not require that relator be provided with counsel prior to arraignment, absent any attempt to take depositions. However, while not constitutionally necessary, the practice of appointing counsel prior to the preliminary hearing is to be encouraged.

Therefore, it is ordered that leave to maintain the instant proceeding in this court by relator is denied.

Wilkie, J., took no part.

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

Per Curiam.

Relator submitted to the jurisdiction of the circuit court by making his motion to dismiss in that court. Having done so, he can no longer seek habeas corpus to test the sufficiency of the evidence at the preliminary examination. The order denying such motion is a non-appealable order. State v. Leikness (August Term, 1960, State No. 33, decided March 7, 1961), unreported.

The issue raised with respect to the failure to provide relator with separate counsel to represent him at the preliminary hearing is without merit. There is no constitutional right to be provided with counsel at a preliminary hearing arising under the United States constitution. Odell v. Burke (7th Cir. 1960), 281 Fed. (2d) 782, certiorari denied, 364 U. S. 875, 81 Sup. Ct 119, 5 L. Ed. (2d) 96. Neither does such a right exist under sec. 7, art. I, Wis. Const., because a preliminary hearing is not a criminal prosecution within the meaning of this constitutional provision. Hawk v. State (1949), 151 Neb. 717, 39 N. W. (2d) 561, 567; cf. State ex rel. Kennon v. Hanley (1946), 249 Wis. 399, 401, 24 N. W. (2d) 683. Sec. 957.26, Stats., does not require that relator be provided with counsel prior to arraignment, absent any attempt to take depositions. However, while not constitutionally necessary, the practice of appointing counsel prior to the preliminary hearing is to be encouraged.

Therefore, it is ordered that leave to maintain the instant proceeding in this court by relator is denied.

Wilkie, J., took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 N.W.2d 809, 17 Wis. 2d 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-offerdahl-v-state-wis-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack