State v. Hicks

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State v. Hicks

557 N.W.2d 412, 207 Wis. 2d 51, 1997 Wisc. LEXIS 6

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 24, 1997

Docket94-2542-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 557 N.W.2d 412 (State v. Hicks) 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 v. Hicks, 557 N.W.2d 412, 207 Wis. 2d 51, 1997 Wisc. LEXIS 6 (Wis. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

DONALD W. STEINMETZ, J.

¶ 1. This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals reversing an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Stanley A. Miller, Judge, dismissing one count of a criminal complaint charging Anthony Hicks with a violation of the controlled substance tax statute. The defendant, Hicks, argues that he has standing to raise a Fifth Amendment constitutional challenge 1 to Wis. Stats. §§ 139.87-139.96, the drug tax statutes, because he faces a criminal conviction for violation of these statutes.

¶ 2. In State v. Hall, 207 Wis. 2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), this court held that the drug tax stamp statute is unconstitutional. Thus, we do not reach the standing issue presented in this case, because the defendant cannot be prosecuted for being in possession of cocaine without a tax stamp. Instead, we reverse and *53 remand to the circuit court with directions to dismiss with prejudice the drug tax stamp charge.

By the Court. — Reversed and cause remanded with directions.

1

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person. . .shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.. .without due process of law_" U.S. Const. Amend. V. This amendment is applied to the states by U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, which states that "[n]o State shall.. .deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

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

DONALD W. STEINMETZ, J.

¶ 1. This is a review of a decision of the court of appeals reversing an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee County, Stanley A. Miller, Judge, dismissing one count of a criminal complaint charging Anthony Hicks with a violation of the controlled substance tax statute. The defendant, Hicks, argues that he has standing to raise a Fifth Amendment constitutional challenge 1 to Wis. Stats. §§ 139.87-139.96, the drug tax statutes, because he faces a criminal conviction for violation of these statutes.

¶ 2. In State v. Hall, 207 Wis. 2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), this court held that the drug tax stamp statute is unconstitutional. Thus, we do not reach the standing issue presented in this case, because the defendant cannot be prosecuted for being in possession of cocaine without a tax stamp. Instead, we reverse and *53 remand to the circuit court with directions to dismiss with prejudice the drug tax stamp charge.

By the Court. — Reversed and cause remanded with directions.

1

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person. . .shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.. .without due process of law_" U.S. Const. Amend. V. This amendment is applied to the states by U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, which states that "[n]o State shall.. .deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 N.W.2d 412, 207 Wis. 2d 51, 1997 Wisc. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hicks-wis-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack