Thompson v. State
212 N.W.2d 109, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1267, 61 Wis. 2d 325 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor possesses broad discretion in deciding whether to bring criminal charges, and this discretion is only abused if the evidence is clearly insufficient to support a conviction or if charges are brought for coercive purposes, not merely if a lesser charge or diversion might have been a reasonable alternative.
Facts:
- On the evening of September 14, 1972, Thompson consumed intoxicating liquors and became under the influence.
- Thompson stopped at a residence, asked the lady there to call Alcoholics Anonymous, and then began groaning, rolling on the ground, and stating he would commit suicide.
- The lady called the police for assistance, and a Lancaster police officer arrived shortly thereafter.
- The officer located Thompson walking down the street approximately a block away and ordered him to stop.
- Thompson verbally threatened the officer, saying, 'Get out of my way you son-of-a-bitch or I will kill you.'
- The officer, seeing no weapon, ordered Thompson back to the squad car at gunpoint for a frisk.
- Thompson then pulled a knife, threatened the officer again, stating, 'This is for you, you son-of-a-bitch,' and struck at the officer with the knife.
- The officer blocked the blow but received a cut to one finger in the ensuing scuffle before managing to handcuff Thompson.
Procedural Posture:
- Thompson was charged with attempted first-degree murder.
- Thompson was convicted of attempted first-degree murder following a trial.
- Thompson appealed his conviction to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, arguing that the district attorney abused his discretion in charging him with attempted first-degree murder and that the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing an excessive sentence.
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 a prosecutor abuse their discretion by charging a defendant with attempted first-degree murder, rather than a lesser charge or pursuing non-criminal diversion, when there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction and the defendant has a significant criminal history including alcoholism?
Opinions:
Majority - Heffernan, J.
No, a prosecutor does not abuse their discretion in such circumstances. The court affirmed that a prosecutor has "great discretion" in determining whether or not to prosecute, citing State ex rel. Kurkierewicz v. Cannon. This discretion includes the power to decide not to prosecute or to divert cases to non-criminal channels, especially for rehabilitation, but this power is not an obligation in all cases. The court clarified that an abuse of discretion occurs only when evidence is clearly insufficient to support a conviction or when charges are brought to coerce a guilty plea to a less serious offense. Given that Thompson conceded the evidence was sufficient for conviction and had a lengthy criminal record dating back to 1942, the prosecutor's decision to charge attempted first-degree murder, though diversion might have been a reasonable alternative, was not an abuse of discretion. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's sentencing, as the judge considered Thompson's background, extensive past criminal record, presentence investigation, and psychiatric reports, which supported incarceration for a recidivist.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the broad scope of prosecutorial discretion in Wisconsin, making it difficult for defendants to challenge charging decisions unless there is a clear lack of probable cause or evidence, or an improper coercive motive. While acknowledging the potential benefits of diversion programs as recommended by ABA standards, the court places the ultimate decision firmly with the prosecutor, underscoring that the availability of such alternatives does not compel their use. This ruling provides prosecutors with significant latitude, reinforcing their role as independent arbiters of justice rather than mere implementers of law enforcement recommendations or judicial suggestions for rehabilitation, particularly in cases involving repeat offenders.
