COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED July 23, 1996 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-1451-CR
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
REGINALD W. McDANIEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
DAVID A. HANSHER, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Sullivan, Fine
and Schudson, JJ.
SULLIVAN,
J. Reginald W. McDaniel appeals, after a jury trial, from a judgment
of conviction for first-degree intentional homicide, while armed; false
imprisonment; and armed robbery—all as party to a crime. McDaniel argues that the trial court
erroneously exercised its discretion when it: (1) denied his motion to dismiss
the amended information; and (2) denied his two motions for mistrial. We reject his arguments and affirm.
I. Background.
The following facts were
presented at trial. On May 14, 1994,
John Pickens, Jr., was abducted at gunpoint from the parking lot of a Milwaukee
tavern by McDaniel and two accomplices.
The group drove through the city, threatening, assaulting, and demanding
money from Pickens. Near 27th Street
and Wisconsin Avenue, Pickens was forced into the back seat of the car. He tried to exit the car and one of
McDaniel's accomplices shot him in the back.
He died immediately.
The State originally
charged McDaniel with felony murder, as a party to a crime. McDaniel waived his preliminary
hearing. At the arraignment, on July
28, 1994, the prosecutor filed the original information, charging McDaniel with
party-to-a-crime felony murder. At the
arraignment, the prosecutor stated that if McDaniel pleaded not guilty and the
case went to trial, the State would move “with leave of the Court to amend this
case to a first degree intentional homicide while armed, armed robbery, and
false imprisonment.” McDaniel pleaded
not guilty to the charges in the original information.
On September 9, 1994, at
a pre-trial hearing, the prosecutor again stated that if the case went to
trial, she would move the court to amend the information to the aforementioned
offenses. Her deadline was that
day. McDaniel did not plead guilty to
the original information, and later that day the State filed an amended
information with the new charges. On
September 20, 1994, McDaniel filed a motion challenging the amended
information, arguing first that the amendment was not timely; and second, that
it was unprofessional conduct by the prosecutor to allegedly use the amendment
as a means of coercing him into pleading guilty to the original
information. The trial court denied
McDaniel's motion, concluding that the amendment was timely and that McDaniel
was not prejudiced by the amendment.
During trial, McDaniel
moved twice for a mistrial. The first
motion occurred during his cross-examination of State witness Police Detective
Eric Moore. Moore was asked about an
out-of-court statement made by Latrina McCoy, McDaniel's former girlfriend, in
which she had incriminated McDaniel in the commission of the charged
offenses. After Moore testified that he
had asked McDaniel why McCoy would implicate him in the crimes if there was
nothing to her story, McDaniel's counsel asked Moore if he had viewed McCoy's
story “as a fantastic story.” Moore responded,
“No. I did not. From my understanding, Miss McCoy was a very
credible witness.” McDaniel objected
and moved to strike the comment. The
trial court granted the motion and instructed the jury to disregard Moore's
comment. McDaniel then moved for
mistrial, which the trial court denied, stating that its instruction to the
jury to disregard the comment was sufficient.
McDaniel's second motion
for a mistrial occurred during his cross-examination by the State. The prosecutor questioned McDaniel about a
seventeen-page statement he gave to police, and suggested he may have
reconsidered the statement “every day” he had been “in jail.” McDaniel objected and the trial court
sustained the objection. The prosecutor
restated the question: “And now you've been sitting in jail and it's the second
day and you now want to give a little bit more and you tell Detective Moore a
statement that you later say is the whole truth?” McDaniel moved for mistrial, arguing that the original question
was unfairly prejudicial by making reference to the time he spent in jail. The trial court denied the motion, stating
the prosecutor's restated question remedied the error. Further, the court offered to give an
admonitory instruction to the jury, but McDaniel stated he was not seeking such
an instruction.
The jury convicted
McDaniel of all the offenses. He renews
his arguments on appeal.
II. Analysis.
A.
Amendment of information.
McDaniel argues that the
trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying his motion to
dismiss the amended information for two reasons. We address each basis seriatim. We first note, however, that a trial court has wide discretion in
determining whether to allow the amendment of an information; thus, we will not
reverse such a determination absent an erroneous exercise of discretion. State v. Frey, 178 Wis.2d 729,
734, 505 N.W.2d 786, 788 (Ct. App. 1993).
1. Alleged
untimeliness and prejudice caused by amendment.
McDaniel first argues
that the amendment of the information was untimely and was prejudicial to
him. We disagree.
Section 971.29(1), Stats., provides: “A complaint or information may be amended
at any time prior to arraignment without leave of the court.” As we recently stated, however:
In Whitaker v. State, 83
Wis.2d 368, 265 N.W.2d 575 (1978), the supreme court declared that
§ 971.29 “does not directly address the question of the amendment of the
information after arraignment and before trial. It neither authorizes nor prohibits such amendment.” Nevertheless, the court held: “Subsection (1) of sec. 971.29 should be
read to permit amendment of the information before trial and within a
reasonable time after arraignment, with leave of the court, provided the
defendant's rights are not prejudiced, including the right to notice, speedy
trial, and the opportunity to defend.”
State
v. Webster, 196 Wis.2d 308, 318, 538 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Ct. App.
1995) (citation omitted).
The State argues that
since an information can be amended within a reasonable time after arraignment,
with leave of the court, the question of timeliness is largely a question of
prejudice. We agree. In Whitaker, the time between
the original information and the amended information was almost eight
weeks. Here, between the filing of the
original information at the July 28 arraignment and the State's presentation of
the amended information of September 9, only six weeks had passed. Accordingly, we look to whether McDaniel's
rights—including the right to notice, speedy trial, and opportunity to defend
against the charges—were prejudiced. Id.
McDaniel's right to
notice was protected. He was informed
of the possible amendment at the original arraignment; thus, he was aware of
the potential charges he was facing.
His right to a speedy trial was not violated; his trial began on the
original date set for trial at the original arraignment. Finally, his opportunity to defend against
the charges was not unduly compromised.
He was aware of the offense charged in the original information. In sum, the amendment of the information was
made within a reasonable time after the arraignment and McDaniel was not
prejudiced by the amendment.
2. Alleged
prosecutorial misconduct.
McDaniel next argues the
amended information should have been dismissed because the prosecutor used the
amendment procedure in an attempt to coerce him into pleading guilty to the
original information. The trial court
properly exercised its discretion in allowing the amended information.
In Thompson v.
State, 61 Wis.2d 325, 212 N.W.2d 109 (1973), the supreme court stated
that it was an abuse of prosecutorial discretion for the State to charge a
defendant with an offense “when the evidence is clearly insufficient to support
a conviction.” Id. at
330, 212 N.W.2d at 111. Further, the
court stated: “It is also an abuse of
discretion for a prosecutor to bring charges on counts of doubtful merit for
the purpose of coercing a defendant to plead guilty to a less serious
offense.” Id.
Neither of these
practices is evident here. The evidence
was clearly sufficient to support a conviction on the three offenses charged in
the amended information. Further, the
amended charges were not of “doubtful merit.”
The prosecutor explained that she initially thought this was a
first-degree intentional homicide and she had always believed that. In her discretion, she decided this would be
a “hard case” and wanted to give McDaniel the option of pleading to a lesser
offense.
McDaniel has never
challenged that the evidence in this case did not support the charges in the
amended information or his conviction for those offenses. As the supreme court stated in Thompson: “[W]here it is conceded by the defendant
that the evidence was sufficient, not only to charge but convict, the
prosecutor did not [erroneously exercise] his discretion or violate the ethics
of the legal profession by bringing a charge of attempted first-degree murder
[rather than diverting the defendant to noncriminal treatment].” Id. at 330, 212 N.W.2d at
112. Further, McDaniel was not coerced
into pleading to any charge—he exercised his right to a jury trial. The trial court properly exercised its discretion
in denying McDaniel's motion to dismiss the amended information.
B.
Motions for mistrial.
McDaniel next challenges
the trial court's denial of his two motions for mistrial. Whether to grant or deny a mistrial clearly
lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision on a
mistrial motion will not be reversed on appeal unless the court erroneously
exercises its discretion. Haskins
v. State, 97 Wis.2d 408, 419, 294 N.W.2d 25, 33 (1980). A trial court must determine, when presented
with a mistrial motion, whether the claimed error is so prejudicial as to
require the extreme remedy of terminating a trial. Oseman v. State, 32 Wis.2d 523, 528‑29, 145
N.W.2d 766, 770 (1966).
We conclude that in both
instances the trial court appropriately denied McDaniel's motion for
mistrial. The first motion for mistrial
occurred during McDaniel's cross-examination of Detective Eric Moore, who
referred to McCoy as a “very credible witness.” There was some disagreement as to whether Moore meant McCoy was
personally or testimonially credible.
McDaniel objected and the trial court struck the answer while directing
the jury to disregard it. Later,
defense moved for a mistrial, stating the comment could be regarded by the jury
as a general comment to McCoy's credibility.
The trial court denied the mistrial, stating the instruction to the jury
to disregard was enough. The trial
court properly relied on the rule that admonitory instructions will be followed
by the jury when given. See State
v. Pitsch, 124 Wis.2d 628, 645 n.8, 369 N.W.2d 711, 720 n.8 (1985).
The second defense
mistrial motion arose during the State's cross-examination of McDaniel. While questioning McDaniel on the statement
he had given to Detective Moore, the prosecutor made reference to McDaniel's
presence in jail. McDaniel later moved
for a mistrial, arguing the question he first objected to prejudiced him. This motion was denied by the trial court,
but the court offered to submit a curative charge, which McDaniel
declined. The error was not sufficient
to warrant the “extreme” remedy of a mistrial.
The trial court's sustaining of the original objection was an
appropriate remedy. Further, any
remaining error was properly corrected in the prosecutor's restated question.
In sum, we reject
McDaniel's arguments and affirm the judgment of conviction.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
Not recommended for
publication in the official reports.
No. 95-1451-CR(D)
FINE, J. (dissenting). In this state a prosecutor may not charge a
defendant with one crime rather than another crime “for coercive reasons”; nor
may the prosecutor “overcharge[] to induce plea bargains.” Unnamed Petitioners v. Connors,
136 Wis.2d 118, 141, 401 N.W.2d 782, 792 (1987), overruled on other grounds,
State v. Unnamed Defendant, 150 Wis.2d 352, 362–365, 441 N.W.2d
696, 700–701 (1989).[1] Such practices tend to extort guilty pleas
from the innocent:
Underlying
many plea negotiations is the understanding — or threat — that if the defendant
goes to trial and is convicted he will be dealt with more harshly than would be
the case if he had pleaded guilty. An
innocent defendant might be persuaded that the harsher sentence he must face if
he is unable to prove his innocence at trial means that it is to his best
interest to plead guilty despite his innocence.
U.S. Nat'l Advisory Comm'n of Criminal Justice, Courts 363
(1973), quoted in Ralph Adam Fine, Plea Bargaining: An Unnecessary
Evil, 70 Marq. L. Rev. 615,
622 (1987). Thus, a report issued
almost thirty years ago by President Lyndon B. Johnson's Commission on Law
Enforcement recognized that a prosecutor's threat “to seek a harsh sentence if
the defendant does not plead guilty” places “unacceptable burdens on the
defendant who legitimately insists upon his right to trial.” President's
Comm'n on Law Enforcement and Admin. of Just., The Challenge of Crime in a Free
Society 135 (1967), quoted in Fine, 70 Marq. L. Rev. at 621–622.
I have discussed this problem at length in Escape of the Guilty at 59–84 (1986), which gives examples of
innocent persons who wanted to plead guilty because of charge-related threats
by prosecutors.
Section 971.29(1), Stats., provides that an amended
Information may not be filed after arraignment unless the trial court grants
leave: “A complaint or information may
be amended at any time prior to arraignment without leave of the court.” See Whitaker v. State,
83 Wis.2d 368, 374, 265 N.W.2d 575, 579 (1978) (Section 971.29(1) permits
“amendment of the information before trial within a reasonable time after
arraignment, with leave of the court.”).
As the Majority notes, whether to permit an amendment of an Information is
within the trial court's discretion.
The trial court must be more, however, than a mere rubber stamp: once a prosecutor has filed an Information,
and there has been an arraignment, the trial court must evaluate the public
interest in determining whether to permit the prosecutor to dismiss or amend
that charge. See State v.
Kenyon, 85 Wis.2d 36, 46–47, 270 N.W.2d 160, 165 (1978)
(dismissal). This was not done here.
The original Information
in this case was filed July 28, 1994.
It charged McDaniel with felony murder as party to a crime. The arraignment was held on that date. The amended Information, which charged
first-degree intentional homicide while armed, false imprisonment, and armed
robbery—all as party to a crime, was filed on September 9, 1994. The record does not reflect that either the
prosecutor sought first the “leave of court” required by § 971.29(1), Stats., or that the trial court gave
it. At the most, the prosecutor
indicated that if McDaniel persisted in his assertions of innocence and in his
intention to have a jury trial, she would seek leave of court to amend. Indeed, the procedure followed here was the
reverse of what the statute requires:
the prosecutor filed the amended Information without first
getting leave of the trial court, and the defendant, ten days later, filed a
motion styled “Defendant's Motion in Opposition to Amendment of Information.”
(Upper casing omitted.)
As the Majority points
out, the only circumstance affecting the prosecutor's decision to up the ante
on McDaniel was that McDaniel wanted to exercise his right to a jury trial
under Article I, Section 7 of the Wisconsin Constitution rather than plead
guilty as the prosecutor wanted. How in
heaven's name can that possibly be a viable reason under our form of
government?[2]
I would reverse the judgment
of conviction, and remand for trial on the original charge of felony murder, as
party to a crime.
[1] Although this practice is permitted in the federal system, see Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (five-to-four decision), the Wisconsin Supreme Court has just reaffirmed that people in this state have protections against the unwarranted exercise of authority by government agents that are greater than the minimum standards applicable under the United States Constitution. State v. Miller, No. 94-0159, slip op. at 9 (Wis. June 19, 1996) (freedom of religion); see also State v. Doe, 78 Wis.2d 161, 171, 254 N.W.2d 210, 215–216 (1977).
[2] The trial court
reflected that this was a common practice of the Milwaukee County District
Attorney. Although the trial court was
“disturbed” by the practice, it concluded that it did not “constitute unprofessional
practice”:
The methods of pressure to induce
a plea in this case constitute unprofessional conduct[?] I find it does not. Only disturbing thing is years ago it used
to be State was amending down [to get a guilty plea], now for some reason I see
more and more cases with different [assistant] D.A.'s [sic] seem to be
amending up and I don't know if there's been a change in the District
Attorney's policies but I'd like to see charges issued that the State can, I
believe, prove and there not be amendments down or amendments up.
The trial court's prescription for justice, simple and unencumbered by the myriad intricacies and fictions of expediency-based plea bargaining as it is, is but a summary of the American Bar Association Standards for prosecutors approved in State v. Karpinsky, 92 Wis.2d 599, 608–609, 285 N.W.2d 729, 735 (1979), and reflects the type of analysis that the trial court was required to apply under § 971.29(1), Stats., but did not.