Moes v. State
284 N.W.2d 66, 1979 Wisc. LEXIS 2153, 91 Wis. 2d 756 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Wisconsin law, once a defendant raises the statutory defense of coercion, the state bears the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- John Schroeder contacted his friend, Mark A. Moes, about a 'job'.
- Moes met with Schroeder, Wally Bergeron, and Terry Neeley, where Neeley offered Moes $1,500 to kill his stepfather, Marvin Boguskie.
- Neeley supplied Moes with a shotgun and they practiced firing it.
- Neeley told Moes to 'make sure the guy is dead or else you are,' and Bergeron later threatened that if Moes did not do the job, someone from Chicago would 'take care of' both Moes and Boguskie.
- Moes's first attempt to kill Boguskie as he left work failed because too many people were present.
- Following a second plan, Moes retrieved the shotgun, went to Boguskie's garage, and waited for him to come home from work.
- When Boguskie arrived, Moes shot him once in the back and then twice more as he lay on the ground, killing him.
- As part of the plan to make the killing look like a robbery, Moes took Boguskie's wallet before fleeing the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark A. Moes was charged with first-degree murder in the circuit court for Brown County, a state trial court.
- Following a jury trial, Moes was convicted of first-degree murder.
- A judgment of conviction was entered against Moes on May 10, 1976.
- Moes filed a postconviction motion for a new trial with the trial court.
- The circuit court denied the motion for a new trial on May 25, 1977.
- Moes appealed both the judgment of conviction and the order denying a new trial to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Wisconsin law, must the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was not coerced once the defendant raises the affirmative defense of coercion?
Opinions:
Majority - Callow, J.
Yes, under Wisconsin law, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was not coerced. The court determined that sec. 939.70 of the Wisconsin Statutes preserved the state's pre-1955 criminal code requirement that the prosecution must disprove defenses of excuse or justification beyond a reasonable doubt once raised by a defendant. The court concluded that the statutory defense of coercion should be treated the same as these other defenses, like self-defense, thus placing the burden of disproof on the state. While acknowledging the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v. New York, which holds that the Due Process Clause does not constitutionally require states to disprove affirmative defenses, the court explicitly grounded its decision in Wisconsin state law, which provides greater protection to the defendant than the federal constitutional minimum. The court also found that the jury instructions, when viewed in their entirety, adequately conveyed this burden to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that Wisconsin law provides greater protection for criminal defendants regarding affirmative defenses than is required by the U.S. Constitution. By placing the burden on the state to disprove coercion beyond a reasonable doubt, the court treats the absence of coercion similarly to an element of the crime for burden-of-proof purposes. This precedent solidifies the procedural requirements for the coercion defense in Wisconsin, making it more difficult for the state to secure a conviction when a defendant presents credible evidence of being forced to commit a crime. It serves as a key example of a state high court interpreting its own laws to set a higher standard for criminal procedure than the federal floor established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
