Court Opinion

ID: 9732976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:48:00.999381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:36.827553
License: Public Domain

Heffernan, J.
(dissenting). Normally, to prove a felony, the prosecution must establish two elements, referred to at common law as actus reus and mens rea — a guilty act and a guilty mind. Perkins, A Rationale of Mens Rea, 52 Harvard Law Review (1939), 905. While the evidence in the instant case could have been sufficient to establish both the act and the mental element of the crime of first-degree murder, the trial court’s finding that the defendant’s act was accompanied by the requisite intent was based on an erroneous view of the law.
Before rendering a verdict of guilty on the charge of first-degree murder, the finder of fact must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the death of another human being “with intent to kill that person or another.” Sec. 940.01 (1), Stats. To constitute this crime, the act which causes death must be accompanied by a specific intent, the “intent to kill.” This mental element is defined as “the mental purpose to take the life of another human being.” Sec. 940.01 (2). It must be distinguished from so-called “general intent,” which requires only that the prohibited act be voluntarily committed and that the actor have the capacity to understand that his act is wrong. Remington and Helstad, The Mental Element in Crime — A Legislative Problem, 1952 Wisconsin Law Review 644, 664. Where specific intent is required, proof of malice or mere general intent *490is insufficient. Hydrick v. State (1963), 246 Miss. 448, 150 So. 2d 423. The specific intent is as much an element of the crime as the act itself, and the act without that specific intent does not constitute the crime. Markiton v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 232, 139 N. E. 2d 440; State v. Thomas (1910), 127 La. 576, 53 So. 868; 22 C. J. S., Criminal Law, pp. 115, 116, sec. 32; 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, p. 164, sec. 82.
However, because the fact finder cannot probe the mind of the defendant, the existence of the requisite specific intent must be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the act. This court has often said that a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts. Gelhaar v. State (1969), 41 Wis. 2d 230, 163 N. W. 2d 609. Intent to kill may be presumed where death was “ ‘the necessary,’ ‘probable,’ ‘usual,’ or ‘ordinary’ result of such act.” Beauregard v. State (1911), 146 Wis. 280, 289, 131 N. W. 347.
The trial judge in the instant case prefaced the announcement of the verdict with the correct statement that a person is presumed to intend the “usual and ordinary and probable” consequences of his acts, but then he went on to say:
“The settled law is that one takes one’s victim as he finds him. So if he wants to take a chance and use a Fanta soda water bottle on the skull of that defenseless old man and that man dies therefrom, that is murder in the 1st degree, under all the evidence, and I arrive at that conclusion without any doubt at all.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Were this a correct statement of the law, every act voluntarily committed by a person with the capacity to understand that the act was wrong which resulted in the death of another human being would be first-degree murder. There would be no need for second-degree murder (sec. 940.02, Stats.), third-degree murder (sec. 940.03), manslaughter (sec. 940.05), or any of the other *491types of homicide from which first-degree murder can be distinguished only by its requirement that the actor have the mental purpose to take the life of another human being. Such a view of the law is inconsistent with the statutory classification scheme for homicides and could not have been intended by the legislature. To commit first-degree murder, the accused must have the specific mental purpose of taking the life of another. If he is only “taking a chance” on striking his victim on the head and death results, his act, however reprehensible, is not first-degree murder.
The majority glosses over the trial court’s erroneous view of the law by focusing on the trial judge’s use of the words, “under all the evidence,” in connection with his misstatement of the law. The majority apparently infers from the addition of these words that the trial judge, rather than relying on his erroneous statement of the law, was indicating that the evidence convinced him that the defendant had the requisite mental purpose to take the life of Frederick Gens. In my opinion, such an inference cannot reasonably be drawn from those words. Furthermore, the majority opinion overlooks the trial judge’s subsequent statement, made during hearing on motions after verdict. The judge said:
“I characterized this as a type of crime — it was very vicious, a premeditated crime, and I made the observation [upon announcing the verdict] and I do it now that the defendant takes the victim as he finds him and if the victim is an older man and more vulnerable for that kind of injury than a younger man with a thicker skull, that is purely the defendant's hard luck. He is the one that administered the blows and he is responsible for them.”
This statement makes it abundantly clear that the defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder, not because the trial court found that he had the mental purpose to take his victim’s life, but only because he *492intentionally unleashed the blows and those blows resulted in the death of the victim.
First-degree murder is the most serious offense defined by our legislature. It carries the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. The consequences of the fact-finder’s decision and the affirmance by this court are very grave, not because of a sentence imposed on a criminal who merits little sympathy but because the affirmation of the trial court’s rationale permits a misapplication of a clear legislative expression. The fundamental error in this case cannot be ignored.
A legal error made by an able but overworked judge who must decide during the heat of trial is excusable, but an appellate court, having the time to deliberate and to decide with correctness cannot gloss over what I consider to be a clear error of law.
When the state seeks a sentence of lifetime incarceration, the duty of this court is to see that the prosecution and the trial court conform to legal standards. Where a trial judge invokes erroneous legal standards in determining guilt, and it cannot be said as a matter of law that the application of such standards did not affect his determination, the judgment must be reversed. It is not harmless error.
I would reverse and remand the case to the trial court for a determination of whether under the evidence presented at trial and under proper legal standards the defendant had the mental purpose to take the life of his victim at the time of the assault.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Hallows and Mr. Justice Wilkie join in this dissent.