State v. Dunn
121 Wis. 2d 389, 359 N.W.2d 151, 1984 Wisc. LEXIS 2889 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
At a preliminary hearing, a judge must bind a defendant over for trial if any reasonable inference drawn from the undisputed facts supports a finding of probable cause, even if other reasonable inferences to the contrary exist.
Facts:
- Ronald J. Dunn had an argument with his roommate.
- Following the argument, Dunn entered his roommate's bedroom.
- Dunn threw lighted matches into his roommate's closet, which contained clothing and books.
- After throwing the matches, Dunn left the room.
- A fire started, causing damage to the clothing and books in the closet, as well as to the closet's walls, doorsill, and the bedroom's walls and ceiling.
- A fire inspector concluded the fire was 'definitely suspicious' because he could not identify any other cause of ignition.
- Neither the roommate nor the landlord had given Dunn permission to set fire to the property.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Ronald J. Dunn with arson to a building, a felony, in the circuit court for Dane county.
- Following a preliminary examination, the circuit court judge found that the evidence did not support an inference that Dunn intended to damage the building and dismissed the felony charge.
- The circuit court held that the state had only established probable cause for the misdemeanor of criminal damage to the roommate's personal property.
- The State (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's order, concluding there was sufficient probable cause for a bindover.
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a preliminary hearing, may a judge weigh competing reasonable inferences drawn from undisputed facts and choose the one they find more persuasive when determining if there is probable cause to bind a defendant over for trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Ceci, J.
No. In a preliminary hearing, a judge may not choose between competing reasonable inferences from the facts when determining probable cause. A preliminary hearing is a summary proceeding, not a trial on the merits, designed to determine if there is a substantial basis for prosecution. Its purpose is to screen out hasty or malicious prosecutions, not to weigh evidence or assess credibility, which is the role of the trier of fact at trial. Probable cause for a bindover is satisfied when there exists a 'believable or plausible account of the defendant’s commission of a felony.' If the evidence supports a reasonable inference that the defendant probably committed the felony, the judge must bind the defendant over, regardless of any contrary inferences. In this case, the act of throwing lighted matches into a closet full of flammable items and leaving makes it a reasonable inference that Dunn intended to damage the building, satisfying the probable cause standard for arson.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the limited, screening function of the preliminary hearing in the criminal justice process. It clarifies that the judge's role is not to act as a preliminary trier of fact but to simply assess whether the prosecution's case is plausible enough to proceed to trial. This standard makes it more difficult for defendants to have charges dismissed at the preliminary stage based on competing interpretations of circumstantial evidence, particularly concerning the element of intent. The ruling ensures that questions involving reasonable, conflicting inferences are ultimately resolved by a jury.
