|
COURT OF
APPEALS DECISION DATED AND
RELEASED July
31, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an
adverse decision by the Court of Appeals.
See § 808.10 and Rule
809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound
volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-0733-CR
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
STATE
OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ALLEN
K. GOLDSMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL
from an order of the circuit court for Jefferson County: JACQUELINE
R. ERWIN, Judge. Affirmed.
DYKMAN,
J. This is a single-judge appeal decided pursuant to § 752.31(2)(f), Stats.
Allen K. Goldsmith appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss a
misdemeanor criminal complaint charging him with obstruction of an officer,
contrary to § 946.41, Stats. Goldsmith argues that the complaint failed
to establish probable cause that the police officer arresting him acted with
lawful authority, an essential element of the crime charged. Because the criminal complaint alleged that
the officer acted with lawful authority, we conclude that the trial court
properly denied the motion and affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
Goldsmith
was charged with obstruction of a police officer by a criminal complaint
alleging he had given false information to a deputy sheriff. Under § 946.41(1), Stats., "Whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an
officer while such officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with
lawful authority, is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." The complaint stated that the officer
subjected Goldsmith to a traffic stop for driving in a "reckless
manner." Prior to trial, Goldsmith
moved to dismiss the complaint because it failed to state facts showing that
the officer was acting with lawful authority.
The trial court denied Goldsmith's motion. After a bench trial, the trial court found Goldsmith guilty. Goldsmith appeals.
STANDARD OF
REVIEW2
Sufficiency
of a complaint is a matter of law addressed de novo by this court. State v. Adams, 152 Wis.2d 68,
74, 447 N.W.2d 90, 92 (Ct. App. 1989).
A challenge to a complaint is not made moot by a subsequent trial if the
issue has been preserved for appeal. Id.
at 73, 447 N.W.2d at 92.
DISCUSSION
Goldsmith argues that
the complaint failed to show that the obstructed officer was acting with lawful
authority because it recited no facts indicating the officer had reasonable
suspicion to initiate the traffic stop.[1] Goldsmith contends the assertion that the
officer observed him operating his vehicle in a "reckless manner" is
a conclusion of law, by itself insufficient to establish probable cause. Goldsmith reasons that since obstruction
requires that the officer is acting with lawful authority and knowledge of this
by the defendant, these elements must be factually supported in the
complaint. In other words, a
determination of probable cause requires the State to show lawful police conduct
when it is a necessary element of the offense charged.
"The
complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the
offense charged. It may be made on
information and belief." Section
968.01, Stats. A written complaint must contain minimum
facts which are themselves sufficient, or allow reasonable inferences, for a
neutral judicial officer to establish probable cause. State ex rel. Evanow v. Seraphim, 40 Wis.2d 223,
226, 161 N.W.2d 369, 370 (1968).
Generally, a complaint is sufficient if it answers the following questions: (1) who is charged?; (2) what is
the person charged with?; (3) when and where did the offense take place?;
(4) why is this particular person being charged?; and (5) who says
so? Adams, 152 Wis.2d at
73-74, 447 N.W.2d at 92. Goldsmith
disputes whether the fourth question was satisfactorily answered in the
complaint.
When
a complaint is challenged for failure to establish probable cause, the test is
whether "the charges are not capricious and are sufficiently supported to
justify bringing into play the further steps of the criminal process." State
ex rel. Cullen v. Ceci, 45 Wis.2d 432, 442, 173 N.W.2d 175, 179 (1970)
(quoting Jaben v. United States, 381 U.S. 214, 224 (1965)). To be sufficient the complaint must only be
minimally adequate. Adams,
152 Wis.2d at 73, 447 N.W.2d at 92. The
State is not required to provide an encyclopedic listing of all evidentiary
facts necessary for conviction of the crime charged. Evanow, 40 Wis.2d at 229, 161 N.W.2d
at 372.
Probable
cause cannot be found, however, if a complaint provides nothing more than legal
conclusions. See State v.
Higginbotham, 162 Wis.2d 978, 992, 471 N.W.2d 24, 30 (1991). In Ritacca v. Kenosha County Court,
91 Wis.2d 72, 82-84, 280 N.W.2d 751, 756-57 (1979), a complaint charging
possession of marijuana with intent to deliver was held insufficient because it
stated only that the defendant was found with marijuana "in his
possession" without any underlying facts as to what constituted the
element of possession. Goldsmith argues
that the complaint charging him mirrors the complaint in Ritacca
because it did not include any underlying facts establishing the element of
lawful authority.
However,
a complaint charging resisting or obstructing a police officer under §
946.41(1), Stats., is legally
sufficient if it recites the statutory language of the offense. State v. Smith, 50 Wis.2d 460,
469, 184 N.W.2d 889, 894 (1971). In Smith,
the complaint stated only that the defendant did "unlawfully and knowingly
resist an officer while such officer was doing an act in his official capacity
and with lawful authority." Id.
at 469, 184 N.W.2d at 893-94. A
majority of the court concluded that "with respect to this type of
offense, the charge as stated in statutory language is sufficient and that no further
facts are necessary." Id.
at 469, 184 N.W.2d at 894.
Accordingly,
it is sufficient that the complaint charging Goldsmith states that the officer
was acting with lawful authority when Goldsmith gave false information to the
officer. The complaint stated that
Goldsmith did "knowingly obstruct an officer ... while such officer was
doing an act in his official capacity and with lawful authority." The complaint was therefore sufficient, and
no further facts underlying the charge were required.
By
the Court.—Order affirmed.
Not recommended for
publication in the official reports. See
Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.