State v. Williams
198 Wis. 2d 516, 544 N.W.2d 406, 1996 Wisc. LEXIS 11 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant is bound over for trial on at least one felony count following a preliminary hearing, the prosecutor may include in the subsequent information any other charges that are transactionally related to the count that was bound over, even if a related count was dismissed at the hearing.
Facts:
- On November 4, 1991, John T. Williams struck Seri K. Storlid-Harris in the face.
- On November 5, 1991, in a separate incident at a different location, Williams was involved in a confrontation with George Buie.
- During the incident with Buie, Williams struck Buie in the face with a large rock.
- The state brought a multi-count complaint against Williams based on the two separate incidents involving Storlid-Harris and Buie.
Procedural Posture:
- A criminal complaint was filed against John T. Williams in Dane County Circuit Court, charging him with aggravated battery against Seri Storlid-Harris (Count I) and two counts related to an incident with George Buie: aggravated battery (Count II) and second-degree recklessly endangering safety (Count III).
- At the preliminary hearing, the court commissioner found probable cause and ordered Williams bound over on Counts I and II.
- The court commissioner found no probable cause for Count III (recklessly endangering safety re: Buie) and dismissed that count.
- The district attorney subsequently filed an information charging Williams with Counts I and II, and a new charge (Count III-i) of first-degree reckless injury based on the same incident with Buie.
- The circuit court granted Williams's motion to sever Count I.
- Williams then moved to dismiss the new Count III-i, arguing it was statutorily barred. The circuit court denied the motion.
- A jury acquitted Williams of Count II but convicted him of first-degree recklessly endangering safety as a lesser-included offense of the new Count III-i.
- Williams filed a post-conviction motion renewing his challenge, which the circuit court denied.
- Williams (appellant) appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which reversed the conviction, holding that the statute barred the new charge.
- The State of Wisconsin (petitioner) appealed 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:
Does Wisconsin Statute § 970.03(10) prohibit a prosecutor from including a charge in an information if that charge arises from the same facts as a transactionally related count that was dismissed at the preliminary hearing, but where bindover was ordered on another related count?
Opinions:
Majority - Geske, J.
No. Wisconsin Statute § 970.03(10) does not prohibit a prosecutor from filing a charge in an information that is transactionally related to another count for which probable cause was found, even if the new charge arises from the same facts as a count dismissed at the preliminary hearing. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine if there is probable cause to believe a felony has been committed by the defendant, not to prove each specific charge. Once probable cause for a felony is found in connection with a specific transaction, the prosecutor has the authority to include any additional charges in the information so long as they are 'not wholly unrelated' to the facts considered at the hearing. The prohibition in § 970.03(10) only applies to dismissed counts that are transactionally distinct from any count for which the defendant was bound over. The court concluded that when counts are transactionally related, if probable cause is found that a felony was committed in relation to one count, bind over is required on all transactionally related counts.
Concurring - Bablitch, J.
While concurring in the result due to the binding precedent of State v. Burke, this opinion expresses deep concern over the majority's decision. The majority's interpretation is a torturous reading of the plain language of the statutes, which appear to prohibit the prosecutor's actions. The decision grants extraordinary and unchecked power to prosecutors, which can be abused in plea bargaining by allowing them to file charges for which no evidence was presented at the preliminary hearing. This effectively abolishes meaningful judicial review of the charging decision, sacrificing fairness for efficiency. The better course would be to overrule Burke and require a factual basis in the preliminary examination for each crime charged in the information.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens prosecutorial discretion in Wisconsin's charging process. It clarifies that the primary function of a preliminary hearing in a multi-count complaint is to establish probable cause for any felony within a given transaction, rather than for each individual charge. By allowing prosecutors to charge any transactionally related offense after a valid bindover on one count, the ruling diminishes the screening power of the judiciary at the preliminary stage. This holding creates a procedural anomaly between single and multi-count complaints, which the court seeks to resolve by establishing a new framework that treats all transactionally related counts as a single unit for probable cause determination, further shifting power to the prosecutor.
