{"id":5966,"date":"2009-07-06T15:10:35","date_gmt":"2009-07-06T20:10:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=5966"},"modified":"2009-07-06T15:12:42","modified_gmt":"2009-07-06T20:12:42","slug":"prior-convictions-as-an-element-of-a-crime-the-effect-of-stipulations-after-state-v-warbelton","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2009\/07\/prior-convictions-as-an-element-of-a-crime-the-effect-of-stipulations-after-state-v-warbelton\/","title":{"rendered":"Prior Conviction as an Element of a Crime: The Effect of Stipulations After State v. Warbelton"},"content":{"rendered":"

In January of this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the defendant’s conviction for stalking in State v. Warbelton<\/em>, 2009 WI 6, 759 N.W.2d 557.\u00a0 In doing so, the court held that a defendant in a stalking case cannot prevent the State from submitting evidence of the existence of the defendant’s prior violent felony conviction, an element of the crime, by stipulating to the conviction before trial.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Stipulations to prior convictions became a powerful tool for defense attorneys in Wisconsin following State v. McAllister<\/em>, 153 Wis. 2d 523, 451 N.W.2d 764 (Ct. App. 1989).\u00a0 A precursor to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Old Chief v. United States<\/em>, the McAllister <\/em>court held that the State could not submit evidence of the details<\/em> of the defendant’s prior felony conviction if the defendant offered to stipulate to that element before trial.\u00a0 The court concluded that the details of the conviction were no longer relevant once the defendant stipulated to it.\u00a0 The State could satisfy the element by submitting a certified record of the defendant’s conviction to the jury.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The court in State v. Alexander <\/em>addressed the derivative question left by McAllister<\/em>: may the defendant completely prevent the jury from considering the prior conviction element by stipulating to the prior conviction before trial?\u00a0 <\/p>\n

The Alexander <\/em>court answered in the affirmative.\u00a0 The case concerned a defendant charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third or subsequent offense.\u00a0 The State had to prove that the defendant had two or more convictions, suspensions, or revocations under Wisconsin’s vehicle laws.\u00a0 The Wisconsin Supreme Court found that, when the defendant stipulated to the prior offenses, the prejudicial effect of informing the jury of the prior offenses outweighed any probative value.\u00a0 Therefore, the jury should only have determined whether the defendant operated the motor vehicle while intoxicated.<\/p>\n

The defendant in Warbelton <\/em>argued that Alexander <\/em>precluded the State or the court from informing the jury about his prior violent felony conviction.\u00a0 The Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, expressly limiting Alexander <\/em>to OWI cases.\u00a0 The court found that, in terms of the convictions, suspensions, or revocations element in the OWI offense, (1) jurors were likely to infer that the prior convictions were also for an OWI offense; (2) jurors were likely to infer from the prior convictions that the OWI offense was part of a pattern of behavior; and (3) jurors were likely to infer from the prior convictions that the defendant likely committed an OWI offense on many other occasions without being caught.\u00a0 The court concluded that these prejudicial features did not exist in the context of a stalking offense and therefore refused to extend Alexander<\/em>.\u00a0 As an aside, the court’s reasoning appears to leave the door open for courts to apply the Alexander <\/em>rule to other offenses so long as the above factors are present.\u00a0 The court, however, was not clear on this point.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

In the end, the Warbelton <\/em>court held that the McAllister <\/em>requirement — that the details<\/em> of prior convictions, rather than the existence<\/em> of the prior convictions, be withheld from jury — was sufficient to safeguard the defendant from the prejudice that attends prior convictions.\u00a0 Is this sound legal doctrine?\u00a0 Is it necessary in a felon in possession of a firearm case that the jury know that the defendant is a felon?<\/p>\n

Other jurisdictions seem to think so.\u00a0 Six federal circuits and several states have concluded that the jury must be apprised of all elements of the offense, even status elements.\u00a0 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that if jurors are left in the dark about a key element of the crime, then jurors might question whether the elements submitted to them should constitute a crime at all.\u00a0 Jurors might question why a defendant is being charged with merely possessing a firearm when, under ordinary circumstances, possessing a firearm is legal.<\/p>\n

One jurisdiction that strayed away from the majority was our sister state, Minnesota.\u00a0 In State v. Davidson<\/em>, 351 N.W.2d 8 (Minn. 1984), the court found that the prejudice that attends the prior conviction element outweighed any probative value once the defendant stipulated to it.\u00a0 The proper procedure in a felon in possession of firearm case, the court explained, was to inform the jury that the defendant was not entitled to carry a firearm and that the sole determination the jury must make was whether the defendant possessed a firearm.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0personally find Minnesota’s approach persuasive, as it satisfies the argument made by the First Circuit while preventing the jury from knowing of the defendant’s prior conviction.\u00a0 After all, there are several statutory reasons why a defendant may not carry a firearm, such as issues with mental health.\u00a0 Other offenses, such as stalking, could be handled in a similar fashion.\u00a0 The jury need only know that, under Wisconsin law, the defendant is subject to prosecution under the given statute.\u00a0 The defendant’s status is irrelevant and should not be submitted to the jury.<\/p>\n

I welcome any comments or responses to my take on this issue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In January of this year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the defendant’s conviction for stalking in State v. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, 759 N.W.2d 557.\u00a0 In doing so, the court held that a defendant in a stalking case cannot prevent the State from submitting evidence of the existence of the defendant’s prior violent felony […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":61,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,14,75],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-criminal-law","category-wisconsin-supreme-court","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/61"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}