99-3271 State v. Noble

Listen to this article

The Court of Appeals’ decision is reversed and defendant’s perjury conviction is reinstated.

“The sole issue on review is whether testimony provided by Noble during the John Doe proceeding should be suppressed from her subsequent perjury prosecution based on the allegation that the state abused the proceeding by permitting her examination to be unlawfully conducted by Matthews, a state agent who was not authorized to practice law. Noble contends that such abusive conduct warrants suppression because such conduct constitutes a violation of her constitutional right to due process. Alternatively, she argues that, even if a constitutional violation did not occur, suppression is still required because it is an appropriate sanction for such abusive conduct. We conclude that the suppression of Noble’s testimony is not required in this case. It is not required because Matthews’ examination of Noble during the John Doe proceeding did not amount to either a constitutional violation or a statutory violation for which suppression is provided as a remedy. We find no other basis for suppressing this evidence. As a result, we disagree with the court of appeals’ decision to suppress Noble’s testimony, and accordingly, we reverse the court’s decision overturning Noble’s conviction.”

CONCURRING OPINION: Prosser, J., with whom Sykes, J., joins.

DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J. “I am persuaded by the reasoning and conclusions of the court of appeals. The special agent was not a lawyer and falls under none of the authorized exceptions for the practice of law by non-lawyers. The defendant was never charged for drug offenses, which were the subject of the John Doe proceeding, and the special agent’s unlawful practice of law yielded the perjury charge against the defendant. Wisconsin courts should not be partners to the unlawful practice of law in a criminal case.”

Court of Appeals, Bablitch, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Thomas H. Boyd, Karl E. Robinson, Matthew D. Spohn, St. Paul, Minn.

For Respondent: Marguerite M. Moeller, James E. Doyle, Madison