Meyers v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtVinje, C. J.
Defendant assigns as error proof of his former convictions after he had admitted them, relying upon the rule in Howard v. State, 139 Wis. 529, 121 N. W. 133. The State answers that it cannot be error to prove that which the' statute requires to be alleged and proved. Sub. (27) (b), sec. 165.01, Stats., provides: “The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove previous convictions of the accused for any violation of this act.” Taken literally this requires proof, but proof of a fact is dispensed with when its existence is admitted. The law requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Howard v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Faull v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1922
- Barry v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by13 opinions
- Brozosky v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928
- State v. AdamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1950
- State v. MidellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- State v. MeyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1951
- State v. WatkinsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.