State v. Drown
2011 WI App 53
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Wisconsin State appeals an order dismissing the second-degree sexual assault charge against James Drown on equitable estoppel grounds, and the court reverses.
- Facts: Drown abducted Jennifer B. on August 19, 2008; investigators later learned he also sexually assaulted her in Oconto County, describing forcible actions including pulling down pants and placing a finger inside Jennifer's vagina.
- After the Oconto County complaint was filed February 26, 2009, Drown moved to dismiss, contending he had already been convicted in Shawano County (2008CF191) under a plea bargain for false imprisonment and disorderly conduct for the same incident.
- Drown argued equitable estoppel barred the Oconto County prosecution because he relied on the plea and believed no sexual assault charge would follow; he claimed the plea implied no expected prosecution for the same acts.
- The circuit court held a nonevidentiary hearing, found inaction by the State induced reasonable reliance, and dismissed the Oconto County charge with prejudice.
- The State appeals, arguing equitable estoppel cannot bar criminal prosecution, and the appellate court agrees and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable estoppel can bar criminal prosecution by the State | Drown asserts estoppel prevents prosecution. | State contends estoppel never applies against government in criminal cases. | No; equitable estoppel cannot preclude criminal prosecution. |
| If estoppel could apply, whether the public interest overrides individual prejudice | Drown argues reliance would justify estoppel to avoid injustice. | State maintains public interests in prosecution outweigh defendant's prejudice. | Public interests outweigh potential injustice; estoppel should not be extended. |
| Whether Drown's reliance on State inaction was reasonable | Drown relied on the State's inaction to his detriment. | State's conduct not subject to estoppel under public policy. | moot in light of holding that estoppel does not apply against the government. |
Key Cases Cited
- DOR v. Moebius Printing Co., 89 Wis.2d 610 (Wis. 1979) (estoppel against government requires balancing public interests and potential injustice)
- Rivest, 106 Wis.2d 406 (Wis. 1982) (due process and prejudice limits on prosecutorial conduct; plea-related protections)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (due process and rights in plea context; safeguards against coercive prosecution)
- State v. Ward, WI 2009 (Wis. 2009) (public interest considerations in Wisconsin criminal procedure)
- United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1984) (due process and plea-related fairness principles in federal context)