Legal Opinion

State v. Kroening

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1956PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The answer to the First question is “No.”

The applicable constitutional provision found in sec. 8, art. I, Wis. Const., is as follows:

“No person . . . shall be compelled in any .criminal case to be a witness against himself. . . .”

In Thornton v. State (1903), 117 Wis. 338, 93 N. W. 1107, a person accused of rape was compelled after his arrest to surrender his shoe to be compared with footprints at the scene of the crime. We said, page 341, that “the prohibition against one’s being compelled to be a witness against himself should not be limited to exclusion of merely oral statements against…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Rochin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. Hoyer v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
  3. State v. WarfieldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Thornton v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Jokosh v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923

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

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Elkins v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Breithaupt v. AbramSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  3. State v. EasonWisconsin Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Browne v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1964
  5. State v. KnappWisconsin Supreme Court · 2005

36 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