Opinion ID: 2115813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the instruction error?

Text: After the jury retired for deliberation, it sent a request to the court asking the date of Spiller's arrest. Procopio Sandoval, an undercover officer with the Milwaukee police department, testified that early in the morning of June 7, 1964, in the Old Rail Tavern in Milwaukee, Spiller had solicited him for the sale of some horse (heroin). They went together to a basement apartment on West North Avenue where Spiller sold the officer some brownish-white powder for $15. The officer then met two other officers who at the trial gave corroborating testimony. About 7 p. m. the next day Sandoval again went to the apartment and was admitted. Spiller was there and after a few minutes the other officers entered the premises and arrested Spiller. In answering the jury's inquiry, the trial court instructed the jury the date of the arrest was the day after the sale, but the date was not in issue, The only issue in this case is did this defendant sell heroin on June 7, 1964. It is quite true that acts occurring subsequent to an offense may bear on the innocence of the acccused. See Post v. United States (D. C. Cir. 1968), 407 Fed. 2d 319; McPherson v. State (Tex. Crim. 1916), 182 S. W. 1114; People v. Hopkins (1966), 76 Ill. App. 2d 350, 222 N. E. 2d 85. While some argument could be made that a prompt arrest or a delayed arrest had some relation to the probative effect of the evidence, a one-day delay in arresting a seller of narcotics is so minimal as to have no probative effect on the issue of guilt and therefore was immaterial. Any extended delay between conviction and arrest generally either goes to probable cause for the arrest, which should be raised prior to the plea, or to a violation of the sixth amendment. Gonzales v. State (1970), 47 Wis. 2d 548, 177 N. W. 2d 843, or to due process, State v. Midell (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 516, 162 N. W. 2d 54, because of the effect of delay on the credibility of witnesses or their ability to remember or their availability. We find no error in the trial court instructing the jury to focus its attention on the issue to be determined.