COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED February 19, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bryan James
Hathaway, Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
¶1 PETERSON, J.[1] Bryan Hathaway appeals a judgment of conviction for committing an act of sexual gratification with an animal in violation of Wis. Stat. § 944.17(2)(c). He argues the statute does not apply to dead animals. Because his actions occurred with a dead deer, he contends the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss. He also argues that statements he made to police should have been suppressed. We conclude that by pleading no contest Hathaway waived his argument on the motion to dismiss. Further, the trial court properly denied his suppression motion. We therefore affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
¶2 On October 11, 2006, officer Adam Poskozim was assisting
Wisconsin Department of Corrections probation agents with home visits at the
Transitional Living Program housing in
¶3 Because having contact with animals was a probation violation, the probation agents requested that Poskozim take Hathaway into custody. Poskozim transported Hathaway to the county jail where the probation agents questioned Hathaway in an interview room. Poskozim waited outside the room. He could hear the agents’ questions but could not hear Hathaway’s answers. Afterward, the agents told Poskozim they wanted Hathaway charged with having sex with a deer. Poskozim reviewed the statutes and then met with Hathaway. Poskozim advised Hathaway of his Miranda[2] rights and Hathaway waived those rights. Poskozim then asked Hathaway what happened and Hathaway stated he had sex with a dead deer he found by the side of the road.
¶4 Hathaway was charged with committing an act of sexual gratification with an animal in violation of Wis. Stat. § 944.17(2)(c). He moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the statute did not apply to dead animals. The circuit court denied the motion. Hathaway then moved to suppress his statement to Poskozim. He argued his statement was not obtained from a legitimate source wholly independent of his inadmissible compelled statement given to the probation officers. The court denied Hathaway’s motion and Hathaway subsequently pled no contest to the charge.
DISCUSSION
I. The
Offense
¶5 Hathaway first argues his conviction should be reversed
because the term “animal” in Wis. Stat.
§ 944.17(2)(c) does not include an animal carcass. He rather convincingly contends that “animal”
means a living creature. However,
Hathaway pled no contest to the charge.
A plea of guilty or no contest waives all nonjurisdictional defects and
defenses.
¶6 Hathaway claims his argument is jurisdictional rather than nonjurisdictional. If the statute does not apply to a carcass, he reasons he has been convicted of a nonexistent crime. Because a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a nonexistent crime, he concludes the waiver doctrine does not apply.
¶7 Hathaway misconstrues the concept of subject matter jurisdiction. He is correct that a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a nonexistent crime. He is incorrect in asserting that if the statute does not cover a dead deer, he was convicted of a nonexistent crime.
¶8 Most cases involving criminal subject matter jurisdiction
arise from charges of attempts. For
example, in State v. Briggs, 218
¶9 Hathaway, however, was charged with and pled to a crime that does exist. The complaint alleges he committed “an act of sexual gratification involving his sex organ and the sex organ of an animal, to-wit: a deer, contrary to sec. 944.17(2)(c)....” The charge uses the direct words of the statute. This is a crime over which the court had subject matter jurisdiction.
¶10 The probable cause portion of the complaint alleges facts constituting the crime. One of the facts is that the deer was dead. What Hathaway is really arguing is that the facts do not support the offense. Or put another way, Hathaway is saying he is not guilty because the State cannot prove he committed the offense against a live animal, as he claims is required.
¶11 Here, Hathaway pled no contest to a crime that exists. His plea waived all nonjurisdictional defects
and defenses.
II. Hathaway’s Confession
¶15 Hathaway
argues that the statement he made to Poskozim violated his right against
self-incrimination because it was not wholly independent of the compelled
statement he made to the probation officers.[3] Questions of constitutional fact are mixed
questions of fact and law. State
v.
¶16 Persons
on probation are “protected by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” State ex rel. Tate v. Schwarz, 2002
WI 127, ¶20, 257
¶17 Poskozim was present when Hathaway returned to the transitional living facility covered in hair and blood. Poskozim stated he was concerned about the possibility of injury or violent crime. Additionally, Poskozim was aware of bestiality allegations against Hathaway in the past. Hathaway argues that Poskozim’s “judgment about the significance of the observations” was colored by questions the probation agents asked Hathaway. Apparently, Hathaway thinks that otherwise Poskozim would not have wanted to interview him. It is simply unreasonable to conclude that a police officer would not want to interview a person covered in hair and blood.
¶18 When
Poskozim questioned Hathaway, Poskozim did not use any information from Hathaway’s
statement to the probation officers. The
circuit court found there was no evidence that Poskozim used any information
that had been garnered from the earlier questioning by the probation
agents. The circuit court found Poskozim
credible when Poskozim stated that he simply asked Hathaway what happened
without asking any pointed or specific questions, and Hathaway responded by
telling him that he had sex with a dead deer. Therefore, while Poskozim was aware of the
probation agents’ questioning, he did not use any information obtained from
that questioning to build a case against Hathaway.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4.
[1] This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 752.31(2). All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are
to the 2005-06 version unless otherwise noted.
[2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
[3]
This argument is not waived because Wis. Stat.
§ 971.31(10) provides an exception to the waiver rule that allows the review of
a motion challenging the admissibility of statements.