Case Name: Alsheimer and another, Plaintiffs in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1917-06-12
Citations: 165 Wis. 646
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alsheimer and another, Plaintiffs in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 165
Pages: 646–653

Head Matter:
Alsheimer and another, Plaintiffs in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.
May 18
June 12, 1917.
Criminal law and practice: Prior convictions: Evidence: Pleading: Opening statement: Error affecting substantial rights.
1. In a criminal prosecution evidence of prior convictions cannot be received unless they are alleged in the information.
2. Where prior convictions -were not alleged in the information, it was error to permit the district attorney to state, in his opening remarks, that he would prove such convictions, and such error is held in this case to have “affected the substantial rights of” the defendants (sec. 3072m, Stats.), it appearing that the evidence upon which they were found guilty was far from conclusive and was such that different juries might very well arrive at different results, and that not until the close of the trial — no evidence of such convictions having been offered — did the trial court instruct the jury to disregard such statement. Marshall, j., Winslow, C. J., and Vinje, J., dissent.
Eebob to review a judgment of tlie municipal court of Dane county: August 0. Hoppmanii, Judge.
Reversed.
Assault with intent to roh. The plaintiffs in error, Al-slieimer and Kronenberg, hereinafter designated defendants, on the 29th day of March, 1917, were convicted of the crime of committing an assault with intent to rob, being unarmed. The information is as follows:
“I, Harry Sauthoff, district attorney for said Dane county, hereby inform said court that J oseph Alslieimer and Herman Kroneribbrg, on the 25th day of February, 1917, at the city of Madison, in said Dane county, did unlawfully and feloni-ously assault one Albert Wendt, with force and violence and with intent then and there to rob, not being armed with a dangerous weapon, against the peace and dignity of the state of Wisconsin.”
In his opening statement to the jury the district attorney stated (1) that he would show by the clerk of the court that the defendant Alslieimer in December, 1914, had been convicted of the crime of burglary and sentenced to two years in the state prison; (2) that the defendant Kronenberg had been convicted of the crime of burglary in December, 1908; (3) that Kronenberg had been convicted of the crime of burglary on June 4, 1912; and (4) that he would show that defendant Kronenberg had been convicted of - the crime of burglary in February, 1904. To each of these statements as made counsel for defendants objected on the ground that the statements were prejudicial, and requested the court to admonish the district attorney and to instruct the jury that they should disregard the statements made by him. The court overruled the objection and the trial proceeded. In his instruction given at the close of the trial the court said:
“Gentlemen of the jury, in the opening statement made by the district attorney yesterday he referred to certain records of the defendants in this case, which he said he would introduce in evidence. I want to instruct you, now, as you know • that no such evidence has been introduced, no records have been introduced with reference to any offense or offenses of any kind heretofore committed by the defendants, and the court instructs you that all the statements made by the district attorney, so far as they refer to those records of these defendants and those offenses or any records of the defendants in the past, you must entirely disregard. They are not evidence in the case at all, and the court now withdraws these statements from you, gentlemen of the jury.”
The jury found both defendants guilty and they were sentenced to the state prison at Waupun for a period of two years, and this writ is prosecuted to review the judgment.
Eor the plaintiffs in error there was a brief by Klmore T. Elver and Henry II. Morgan of Madison, and oral argument by Mr. Elver.
Eor the defendant in error there was a brief by the Attorney General and Harry Sauthoff, district attorney, and oral argument by Mr. Sauthoff.

Opinion:
Rosenberry, J.
That evidence of such prior convictions could not be received unless such prior convictions were al leged in the information has been repeatedly determined by this court. Paetz v. State, 129 Wis. 174, 107 N. W. 1090; Howard v. State, 139 Wis. 529, 121 N. W. 133; Dahlgren v. State, 163 Wis. 141, 157 N. W. 531. That it was error for the district attorney, such facts not being set forth in the information, to make the statements which he did to the jury, is likewise well established. Buel v. State, 104 Wis. 132, 80 N. W. 78; Baker v. State, 120 Wis. 135, 97 N. W. 566; Paulson v. State, 118 Wis. 89, 94 N. W. 771. No attempt was made to amend the information and no effort was made to introduce evidence in support of the statements made by the district attorney.
"Section 3072m. No judgment shall be reversed or set aside or new trial granted in any action or proceeding, civil or criminal, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or the improper admission of evidence, or for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which the application is made, after an examination of the entire action or proceeding, it shall appear that the error complained of has affected the substantial rights of the party seeking to reverse or set aside the judgment, or to secure the new trial."
Does it appear that the substantial rights of the defendants are affected by the error complained of ? The evidence upon which the defendants were found guilty was far from conclusive, and different juries might very well arrive at different results. As was said by this court in Paulson v. State, 118 Wis. 89, 99, 94 N. W. 771:
"In a doubtful case even the trained judicial mind can hardly exclude the fact of previous bad character or criminal tendency, and prevent its having effect to swerve such mind toward accepting conclusion of guilt. Much less can it be expected that jurors can escape such effect." ,
Had the district attorney made any one of the statements complained of, objection thereto been promptly sustained, and. the jury then and there instructed to disregard such statement, it might he said that the substantial rights of the defendants were not affected. In this case, however, objection to the improper remarks was made promptly, and repeated as each statement was made, and the objection overruled by the court. The impression gained by the jury was permitted to remain with them for more than a day, and then the jury were instructed that the statements of the district attorney so far as they related to the defendants' records should be disregarded. Upon this record we are of opinion that the substantial rights of the defendants were affected by the error complained of.
It does not appear from the record whether the facts stated by the district attorney were or were not susceptible of proof, and it may well be that the jury thought the evidence was excluded for some technical reason, and their deliberations must have been affected to some substantial extent by the improper statements. While the administration of our criminal law should not be embarrassed by a strict adherence to merely technical rules, yet each citizen is entitled to a fair trial. If the men were not ex-convicts as stated by the district attorney, there was no justification for the statements; if the statements were true, the procedure was clearly and plainly marked out. The facts must be alleged in the information, and if not so alleged when it is filed it may be .amended on leave of court. When the facts are set out in the information and admitted by the defendant, it is prejudicial to allow proof of them and comment thereon by the district attorney. Howard v. State, 139 Wis. 529, 121 N. W. 133.
Other errors complained of are not likely to he repeated upon a second trial, and we shall not further notice them here.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. The warden of the state prison will deliver the plaintiffs in error into the custody of the sheriff of Dane comity, who will hold them in custody to await the further order of the court.