State v. Kopacka

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State v. Kopacka

141 N.W.2d 260, 30 Wis. 2d 580, 1966 Wisc. LEXIS 1084

DecidedApril 12, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 141 N.W.2d 260 (State v. Kopacka) 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. Kopacka, 141 N.W.2d 260, 30 Wis. 2d 580, 1966 Wisc. LEXIS 1084 (Wis. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Gordon, J.

The trial court refused to entertain Mr. Kopacka’s application for a writ of coram nobis and based that refusal upon our decision in Houston v. State [582]*582(1959), 7 Wis. (2d) 348, 96 N. W. (2d) 343. Unless this court is willing to retreat from its holding in Houston, the trial court must be affirmed. In Houston, this court stated, at page 352:

“. . . the writ of coram nobis does not reach the question of perjury by a witness on a trial because the direct or implied finding by the jury or the court that the testimony of such witness was true is conclusive upon the hearing of the petition for the writ.”

The appellant would appear to be on the horns of a dilemma. If he urges that the witness’ perjury was so serious as to constitute a violation of his constitutional rights, then he is confronted by the fact that his contentions can be entertained on habeas corpus. We have held that an issue which can be reached by habeas corpus should not be considered on an application for coram nobis. We see nothing in Mooney v. Holohan (1935), 294 U. S. 103, 55 Sup. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791, 98 A. L. R. 406, or Napue v. Illinois (1959), 360 U. S. 264, 79 Sup. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. (2d) 1217, which contradicts this interpretation. If, however, it is contended by the appellant that the imperfection did not affect due process but merely constituted an error at the trial, then the applicant would be bound by the reasoning of the Houston Case, and coram nobis would not be available to him.

Perhaps to avoid this dilemma, the appellant urges that we revise our standards as to coram nobis on grounds of public policy or, in the alternative, that we treat this application for coram nobis now on appeal to this court as the equivalent of an application for habeas corpus. Upon careful consideration, we have determined to deny both of the appellant’s requests; however, we do not thereby purport to rule on the merits of an application for habeas corpus in the event an application for such a writ were to be subsequently submitted.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.

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

Gordon, J.

The trial court refused to entertain Mr. Kopacka’s application for a writ of coram nobis and based that refusal upon our decision in Houston v. State [582]*582(1959), 7 Wis. (2d) 348, 96 N. W. (2d) 343. Unless this court is willing to retreat from its holding in Houston, the trial court must be affirmed. In Houston, this court stated, at page 352:

“. . . the writ of coram nobis does not reach the question of perjury by a witness on a trial because the direct or implied finding by the jury or the court that the testimony of such witness was true is conclusive upon the hearing of the petition for the writ.”

The appellant would appear to be on the horns of a dilemma. If he urges that the witness’ perjury was so serious as to constitute a violation of his constitutional rights, then he is confronted by the fact that his contentions can be entertained on habeas corpus. We have held that an issue which can be reached by habeas corpus should not be considered on an application for coram nobis. We see nothing in Mooney v. Holohan (1935), 294 U. S. 103, 55 Sup. Ct. 340, 79 L. Ed. 791, 98 A. L. R. 406, or Napue v. Illinois (1959), 360 U. S. 264, 79 Sup. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. (2d) 1217, which contradicts this interpretation. If, however, it is contended by the appellant that the imperfection did not affect due process but merely constituted an error at the trial, then the applicant would be bound by the reasoning of the Houston Case, and coram nobis would not be available to him.

Perhaps to avoid this dilemma, the appellant urges that we revise our standards as to coram nobis on grounds of public policy or, in the alternative, that we treat this application for coram nobis now on appeal to this court as the equivalent of an application for habeas corpus. Upon careful consideration, we have determined to deny both of the appellant’s requests; however, we do not thereby purport to rule on the merits of an application for habeas corpus in the event an application for such a writ were to be subsequently submitted.

By the Court. — Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 N.W.2d 260, 30 Wis. 2d 580, 1966 Wisc. LEXIS 1084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kopacka-wis-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack