Title: State v. Patrick A. Saunders

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2002 WI 119 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
01-0271 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, 
 
v. 
Patrick A. Saunders,  
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 
2002 WI 107 
Reported at:  ___ Wis. 2d ___, 649 N.W.2d 263 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
October 24, 2002   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
        
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
        
 
COUNTY: 
        
 
JUDGE: 
        
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
ABRAHAMSON, C.J., concurs (opinion filed).   
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
      
 
 
2002 WI 119 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No. 01-0271   
(L.C. No. 
 93-CF-98) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
State of Wisconsin,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
Patrick A. Saunders,  
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
 
FILED 
 
OCT 24, 2002 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
MOTION for reconsideration.  Reconsideration denied.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   The motion for reconsideration is denied 
without costs. 
 
 
 
 
No.  01-0271.ssa 
 
1 
 
 
¶2 
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE   (concurring).  
Patrick Saunders filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting 
two grounds: 
(1) The court's decision overlooks and is in conflict with 
controlling legal authority, namely Wis. Stat. §§ 889.071 
and 889.08;2 and  
                                                 
1 Wisconsin Stat. § 889.07 provides as follows:  
The 
original 
records, 
papers 
and 
files 
in 
or 
concerning any action or proceeding of any nature or 
description in any court of the state, being produced 
by the legal custodian thereof, shall be receivable in 
evidence whenever relevant; and a certified copy 
thereof shall be received with like effect as the 
original. 
2 Wisconsin Stat. § 889.08 provides in part as follows:  
(1) Whenever a certified copy is allowed by law to be 
evidence, the copy shall be certified by the legal 
custodian of the original to have been compared by the 
custodian with the original, and to be a true copy 
thereof or a correct transcript therefrom, or to be a 
photograph of the original. The certificate must be 
under the custodian's official seal or under the seal 
of the court, public body or board, whose custodian 
the custodian is, when the custodian, court, body or 
board is required to have or keep such seal. 
* * * * *  
(5) When a certified copy of any record, paper or 
instrument of any kind is made receivable in evidence 
such copy shall have the same effect as evidence as 
the original. 
Saunders argues that Wis. Stat. § 889.07 is not limited to 
evidence offered at trial and that compliance with this statute 
is required in the present case.  Saunders cites Lingott v. 
Bihlmire, 38 Wis. 2d 114, 127-28, 156 N.W.2d 439 (1968). 
No.  01-0271.ssa 
 
2 
 
(2) When 
the 
court 
concludes 
that 
little 
material 
difference exists between a certified and uncertified copy 
of a prior judgment of conviction, it overlooks important 
policy considerations 
evident 
in 
other 
statutes 
that 
explicitly require certified copies of a prior judgment.   
¶3 
The State opposes the motion for reconsideration on 
two grounds, one procedural and the other substantive:   
(1) The State's procedural argument is that a motion for 
reconsideration should not be employed to present a new 
argument; and  
(2) The State's substantive argument on the merits is that 
the statutes cited do not require the use of a certified 
copy of a conviction and do not prohibit the use of an 
uncertified copy. 
¶4 
The State's procedural argument is unconvincing.  The 
motion in the present case alerts the court to a possible error 
or omission in its decision.  The motion thus serves one of the 
primary purposes of a motion for reconsideration.3  Most motions 
for reconsideration are denied because they re-argue issues 
already argued and considered.   The motion in the present case 
does not fall into this category as neither the parties nor the 
majority and dissenting opinions referred to these statutes. 
¶5 
I take no position on the substantive merits of the 
controversy. I write because I believe that in the interest of 
                                                 
3 See Michael S. Heffernan, Appellate Practice and Procedure 
in Wisconsin § 22.4 (2d ed. 1995 & Supp. 2001).  
 
No.  01-0271.ssa 
 
3 
 
judicial economy, the court should decide, with or without 
further briefing, the legal issue Saunders raises in his motion 
and should forestall further litigation on the issue he 
presents. 
¶6 
For the reasons set forth, I concur in the court's 
decision to deny the motion for reconsideration, but I conclude 
that the court ought to issue an appropriate corrective or 
explanatory memorandum to its opinion on the issues raised.4 
 
 
                                                 
4 The Internal Operating Procedures of the Supreme Court, 
part II. J., provide as follows: 
Reconsideration, in the sense of a rehearing of the 
case, is seldom granted.  A change of decision on 
reconsideration will ensue only when the court has 
overlooked controlling legal precedent or important 
policy 
considerations 
or 
has 
overlooked 
or 
misconstrued 
a 
controlling 
or 
significant 
fact 
appearing in the record.  A motion for reconsideration 
may result in the court's issuing a corrective or 
explanatory memorandum to its opinion without changing 
the original mandate. 
No.  01-0271.ssa 
 
 
 
1