Legal Opinion

Van Voorhis v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1965PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFaIRCHild, J.

Sec. 957.26 (2), Stats., requires that upon arraignment, the court shall advise any person charged with felony of his right to counsel and that if he is indigent the court will appoint counsel at his request. A record of the advice and reply must be made in either the docket or transcript.

There is a transcript in this case, but it shows that the court failed to advise Van Voorhis that counsel would be furnished to him, if indigent, at his request. The lack of compliance with the statute is clear. We have, however, suggested in an earlier decision that a defendant cannot raise this error on…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pulaski v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  2. State Ex Rel. Burnett v. BurkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Babbitt v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  4. State Ex Rel. Doxtater v. MurphyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1946
  5. State Ex Rel. Casper v. BurkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1959

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. ReppinWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  2. State v. StricklandWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  3. State v. GuidenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Holloway v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  5. State v. KoernerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966

15 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