Opinion · Wisconsin Supreme Court

Paladino v. State

187 Wis. 605

Type
Opinion
Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Wisconsin
Date
1925-10-20
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • determining that despite the lack of errors, the case against defendant was very "doubtful" and defendant should have the opportunity to present the case to another jury

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Paladino v. State. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
11 opinions
Rosenberry, J.

The information charges the plaintiff in error (hereinafter designated the defendant) with having on September 15, 1923, wilfully and feloniously assaulted and carnally known and abused Francisco Martinico, a female under the age of eighteen years, the defendant being a male person over the age of eighteen years.

Upon the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty and the defendant was sentenced to a term of four years in the state prison. Thereupon the trial court granted a stay of execution. The case was removed to this court where it was argued at length. On behalf of the defendant it was contended that the evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction. This was argued under eleven heads. It was also *606 urged that the court erred in admitting and rejecting evidence and in his instructions to the jury.

This case has had our very careful and thorough consideration. While there appear to be no errors sufficient to work a reversal of the judgment, the court is of the opinion that a new trial should be ordered in this case for the reason that it appears probable that justice has miscarried. Sec. 2405m, Stats. It is not held that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain a verdict. But upon the whole record this court is of the opinion that in the interests and in furtherance of justice there should be a new trial, and in view of that fact we purposely refrain from any comment upon the evidence. While the errors complained of are not sufficient to work a reversal under the rule, this being a very close and doubtful case, we are of the opinion that the defendant should have an opportunity of presenting the matter to another jury.

By the Court. — The judgment of the municipal court of the city of Beloit is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings according to law; the defendant to remain in the custody of the sheriff of Rock county unless admitted to bail or otherwise discharged by order of the court.