State v. White

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State v. White

208 N.W.2d 321, 59 Wis. 2d 354, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1432

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJune 29, 1973

DocketState 2

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 208 N.W.2d 321 (State v. White) 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. White, 208 N.W.2d 321, 59 Wis. 2d 354, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1432 (Wis. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

*355 Per Curiam.

All members of the court participating agree that assignments of error argued on the appeal are, with one exception, without merit. On the remaining issue, the court is evenly divided. The trial judge refused to permit the defendants to be represented at trial by a volunteer, unpaid attorney in addition to court-appointed and compensated counsel and one other volunteer attorney. Mr. Justices Wilkie, Beilfuss, and Hef-eernan would reverse on the ground that error was of constitutional proportions involving the denial of counsel of defendants’ choice. Mr. Justices Hanley, Connor T. Hansen, and Robert W. Hansen would affirm on the ground that error was harmless in light of the fact that the representation afforded by court-appointed counsel and the additional volunteer attorney was concededly competent.

Mr. Chief Justice Hallows took no part.

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

*355 Per Curiam.

All members of the court participating agree that assignments of error argued on the appeal are, with one exception, without merit. On the remaining issue, the court is evenly divided. The trial judge refused to permit the defendants to be represented at trial by a volunteer, unpaid attorney in addition to court-appointed and compensated counsel and one other volunteer attorney. Mr. Justices Wilkie, Beilfuss, and Hef-eernan would reverse on the ground that error was of constitutional proportions involving the denial of counsel of defendants’ choice. Mr. Justices Hanley, Connor T. Hansen, and Robert W. Hansen would affirm on the ground that error was harmless in light of the fact that the representation afforded by court-appointed counsel and the additional volunteer attorney was concededly competent.

Mr. Chief Justice Hallows took no part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 N.W.2d 321, 59 Wis. 2d 354, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-white-wis-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack