Opinion ID: 2131046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: What Standard of Review?

Text: [1] A defendant may be bound over for trial when the evidence at the preliminary hearing is sufficient to establish probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the defendant probably committed it. [3] [2] The probable cause that is required for a bindover is greater than that required for the issuance of an arrest warrant, but guilt beyond a reasonable doubt need not be proven. [4] A defendant may not be bound over for trial unless it appears to a reasonable probability that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. Vigil v. State, 76 Wis.2d 133, 141, 250 N.W.2d 378 (1976). [5] The attorney general argues that even after the trial court has found insufficient evidence for a bindover at the preliminary hearing and the case is appealed, this court should apply the same standard, the standard of reasonable probability, in determining whether the trial court finding was erroneous. [6] The attorney general interprets State v. Janasky, 258 Wis. 182, 183, 45 N.W.2d 78 (1950) to support his argument, but since Janasky, this court has decided State v. Olson, 75 Wis.2d 575, 250 N.W.2d 12 (1976) and State ex rel. Hussong v. Froelich, 62 Wis.2d 577, 215 N.W.2d 390 (1974). Those cases state that in reviewing a finding of sufficiency of the evidence at the preliminary hearing. The reviewing court can examine the evidence only sufficiently to discover whether there was any substantial ground for the exercise of judgment by the committing magistrate. When the reviewing court has discovered that there is competent evidence for the judicial mind of the examining magistrate to act on in determining the existence of the essential facts, it has reached the limit of its jurisdiction and cannot go beyond that and weigh the evidence. [7] Hussong at 62 Wis.2d 583, Olson at 75 Wis.2d 584. [3] The approach suggested by the attorney general would require this court to review ab initio the sufficiency of the evidence at a preliminary hearing. This court does not make that kind of evidentiary review. Regardless of who prevails at the preliminary hearing we will only review the record enough to determine whether ... there is competent evidence for the judicial mind of the examining magistrate to act on in determining the existence of the essential facts, ...