State v. Henry G. Wagner
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2005 WI 63 SUPREME COURT CASE NO.: OF WISCONSIN 2003AP1878-CR COMPLETE TITLE: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Henry G. Wagner, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (no cite) OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: June 2, 2005 March 30, 2005 Circuit Milwaukee Richard J. Sankovitz JUSTICES: CONCURRED: DISSENTED: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: For the defendant-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs by John T. Wasielewski and Wasielewski & Erickson, Milwaukee, and oral argument by John T. Wasielewski. For the plaintiff-respondent, the cause was argued by Jeffrey J. Kassel, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Peggy A. Lautenschlager, attorney general. 2005 WI 63 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2003AP1878-CR (L.C. No. 01CF5884) STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, FILED v. JUN 2, 2005 Henry G. Wagner, Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Supreme Court Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Dismissed as improvidently granted. ¶1 PER CURIAM. Henry G. Wagner petitioned for review of the court of appeals' summary disposition, State v. Wagner, No. 2003AP1878-CR, unpublished order (Wis. Ct. App. August 27, 2004), that affirmed a judgment convicting Wagner of one count of armed robbery. The court of appeals concluded that statements made by Wagner while the West Allis Police Department officers were booking him fell within the exception to Miranda.1 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). routine booking No. ¶2 We accepted review to determine the 2003AP1878-CR scope of the "booking exception" to the requirement that police give Miranda warnings prior to questioning a suspect while in custody. After examining the record and the briefs of the parties, and after hearing oral argument, we conclude that the petition for review was improvidently granted. Because it is not clear whether the officer limited the questioning to the booking form or whether follow-up questions were asked, and because the record is silent as to which of Wagner's statements were volunteered or in response to police questioning, we conclude that this case does not present the issue for which we granted review; therefore, we dismiss the petition for review. By the Court. The review of the decision of the court of appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted. 2 No. 1 2003AP1878-CR
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
