Legal Opinion

Butala v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1976No. State 221 (1974)PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.

Upon this appeal the defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence but does contend the statute under which he was convicted, sec. 450.09, is unconstitutional because it is vague and overbroad. He also argues it was error not to grant severance of his case at the trial.

Sec. 450.09, Stats., provides:

“Placing drugs forbidden. Except as authorized by law, no person shall put any drug, medicine or chemical, or any compound or combination thereof in any public place, or, without the consent of the owner or occupant upon any private premises, nor cause it to be done.”

The charges…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dombrowski v. PfisterSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Jordan v. De GeorgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. Scales v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  4. United States v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  5. State v. ZwickerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State v. CourtneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  2. State v. PopanzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1983
  3. State v. KilloryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  4. State v. EhlenfeldtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Cranmore v. StateCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1978

12 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