Opinion ID: 1917822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Review Upon Appeal to Circuit Court.

Text: This appeal presents the court with its first opportunity to consider sec. 957.255, Stats., which became effective in 1962, [1] and which provides in part: (2) If a new trial is denied an appeal may be taken therefrom to the circuit court within 15 days of the date of such denial, and said circuit court may review the order refusing a new trial and if reversed and the crime involved is a felony then the circuit court may order a new trial to be had in said circuit court, . . . The decision of the circuit court neither declares that the evidence was insufficient to prove respondents' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt nor that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a new trial. It appears from a reading of the decision that the circuit court reviewed the record and concluded, de novo, that the facts are not as a matter of law sufficient to constitute the crime of rape. Relying on In re Johnson [2] the state contends that the circuit court erroneously reversed the trial court order denying new trials in that it improperly assumed a fact-finding function and improperly substituted its discretion for that of the trial court. Johnson involved a construction of sec. 48.47, Stats., which permitted anyone aggrieved by an adjudication of the juvenile court to appeal to the circuit court of the same county. In concluding that the circuit court did not have the authority to review the record and come to an independent conclusion, this court said: Ordinarily, in Wisconsin, an appellate court does not have the power to decide questions of fact as an original proposition upon its review of the record. `In a trial to the court findings of fact will not be set aside on appeal unless they are contrary to the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.' (Citing cases.) Swazee v. Lee (1951), 259 Wis. 136, 137, 47 N. W. (2d) 733. It has been held that upon appeal from the civil court to the circuit court for Milwaukee county, the findings have the same status as findings of the circuit court have upon appeal to the supreme court. `The findings of that court have the same status upon appeal to the circuit court as findings of the circuit court on appeal to this court. They are not entitled to the same conclusiveness as a verdict of a jury, but will control unless against the clear preponderance of the evidence.' (Citing cases.) Foster v. Bauer (1921), 173 Wis. 231, 234, 180 N. W. 817. [3] By way of explanation the court stated: This limitation upon the scope of review must rest, in part at least, upon a recognition that the trier of the fact who saw and heard the witnesses is in a better position to determine credibility and weight of evidence than a court which merely reads the transcript of the testimony. [4] Although the present case is a criminal matter, while Johnson was a civil case, the underlying rationale of Johnson in regard to scope of review should control if for no other reason than that the same problems of credibility exist. In addition to incorrectly deciding the case as an original proposition based on a review of the trial record, the circuit court erred in ordering a new trial in the interests of justice. This is because under the provisions of sec. 957.255 (2), Stats., the circuit court does not have the authority, as does this court on review [5] or the trial court after the trial, [6] to order a new trial in the interests of justice. The authority in each instance is vested by precise statute and in the absence of express language in sec. 957.255 (2) authorizing the reviewing circuit court to order a new trial in the interests of justice, we find no such authority by implication. The trial court had refused to grant a new trial on that ground, and this was error only if there was an abuse of discretion. [7] As the court said in In re Johnson: . . . it is the general rule that where discretion is conferred upon a trial court, the appellate court is not to reverse the trial court unless the record demonstrates that there has been an abuse of discretion. Mueller v. Michels (1924), 184 Wis. 324, 341, 197 N. W. 201, 199 N. W. 380. The appellate court is not authorized to substitute its discretion for that of the trial court. [8] Thus, as pointed out in Johnson, the questions properly before the circuit court should be the same as are before this court at the present time, i.e., whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a new trial. [9]