Legal Opinion

Curry v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1967PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.

The record shows that counsel was appointed for the defendant and that he appeared in court at all critical times during the course of the proceedings. We said in Van Voorhis v. State (1965), 26 Wis. 2d 217, 223, 131 N. W. 2d 833, that if the record shows that there has been a failure to provide counsel, it becomes the duty of the state to show that the defendant was not prejudiced thereby and that no constitutional right was infringed as a result. However, we have decided in Mueller v. State (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 70, 74, 145 N. W. 2d 84, and State v. Koerner (1966), 32 Wis. 2d 60, 65, 145 N. W.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. State v. ReppinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  3. State v. StricklandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Holloway v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Babbitt v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Application of Larry Buffalo Chief, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus v. State of South Dakota and Don R. Erickson, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1970
  2. State v. AustinSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1969
  3. State v. WolfeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  4. State v. GuidenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  5. State v. Buffalo ChiefSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API