MADISON - Although he has served his prison sentence, a rural Gratiot man convicted for an armed confrontation with game wardens, will get a chance to convince the Wisconsin Supreme Court that he was acting in self-defense.
Robert J. Stietz, 69, refused to drop the .357 caliber handgun he pointed at a man that Stietz said he did not recognize as a warden.
Stietz was looking for trespassers on acreage he owned in the Town of Lamont at dusk on the final day of the deer gun hunting season in November 2012. Conservation Wardens Joseph Frost and Nick Webster were looking for hunting violators when they saw on the seat of Stietz's parked vehicle an empty gun case, buck lure and a tree stand seat. They proceeded onto Stietz's property.
According to briefs attorneys filed with the court:
Frost and Webster located Stietz and called to him from a distance that they were wardens. When they were nearer to Stietz, they did not re-identify themselves as wardens but asked Stietz if he had seen any deer. Stietz replied that he had but that he was not hunting. Frost asked if the Weatherby rifle Stietz was carrying was loaded and Stietz said it was. Frost asked to see it but Stietz refused. Frost stepped closer, asked again, grabbed Stietz by the shirt and reached for the rifle. The wardens wrestled with Stietz for the rifle with Frost ending up with it while falling to the ground.
Webster drew his handgun on Stietz and Stietz drew his pistol on Webster. A standoff ensued with Stietz claiming he feared for his life from the two blaze orange-clad strangers. The wardens wore official insignia on their caps and shoulders but Stietz said he could not see it.
Webster used a radio microphone clipped to his collar to summon help while Stietz kept his pistol pointed at Webster. When a Lafayette County deputy sheriff responded, the wardens retreated to the deputy's squad car. Then, Stietz unloaded the pistol, put it on the ground and was taken into custody.
Stietz was tried and convicted of resisting arrest and pointing a firearm at a conservation warden. Green County Circuit Judge James Beer sentenced Stietz to a year in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
A state appeals court rejected Stietz's request for a new trial on grounds he was not allowed to claim he was acting in self-defense. Also, the wardens violated his Second Amendment right to arm himself and the wardens trespassed on his private property making their arrest of him an unlawful seizure.
Stietz's attorney, Charles Giesen, will argue next month before the state Supreme Court that Beer erred by not allowing jurors to consider that Stietz was acting in self-defense when he was confronted by two trespassing armed strangers who demanded his rifle. Stietz did not know the men were wardens as he did not hear them call out to him from a distance, their insignia was not visible and he did not recognized them on sight.
The threshold to introduce a self-defense claim at trial is low, Giesen wrote the court, and the undisputed facts more than satisfied that minimum requirement.
Jurors, not the judge, should have decided whether there was reason to believe that Stietz pointed his pistol at Webster because he felt his life was being threatened.
According to their brief, the state will argue that Stietz's self-defense claim failed as he likely knew the two men were wardens. When Frost identified himself as a warden from only 20 yards away Stietz's "head snapped and looked right at us," Frost testified. Seconds later, Webster identified himself as a warden.
While Stietz argues on appeal that a warden shined a flashlight toward him making it impossible for him to see their insignia, he testified at trial that the wardens did not shine a flashlight on him.
"Stietz is not entitled to any better version of the facts than he himself testified to," Assistant Attorney General Sara Shaeffer wrote in her brief.
Shaeffer also argued that Stietz's Second Amendment right to bear arms does not allow him to point one at a law enforcement officer.
The wardens had a reasonable suspicion that Stietz was hunting after dark in violation of state statutes and were authorized to stop and question him. Stietz's refusal to turn over his rifle constituted a threat to the wardens' safety and they had a right to temporarily take it, Shaeffer wrote the court.
Giesen counters that Stietz had a right to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest which occurred when confronted in the dark on his own property. Stietz first suspected that Frost and Webster were wardens when one radioed for help but that was after the standoff had fully developed.
The wardens also overstepped their authority to stop and disarm Stietz because they were acting on a suspected hunting code violation, which is a civil matter. The wardens hunch was uncorroborated by their observations when trespassing on Stietz's property as they heard no shots and saw no hunting activity but heard Stietz say he was only looking for trespassers, Giesen wrote the court.
Stietz is a lifelong beef farmer with no prior criminal history. He and his wife, Sue, of 40-plus years, owned and farmed acreage near Gratiot and the Town of Lamont. He deserves to have the convictions reversed and his civil right restored, Giesen wrote.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Feb. 15 and issue a decision this summer.
Robert J. Stietz, 69, refused to drop the .357 caliber handgun he pointed at a man that Stietz said he did not recognize as a warden.
Stietz was looking for trespassers on acreage he owned in the Town of Lamont at dusk on the final day of the deer gun hunting season in November 2012. Conservation Wardens Joseph Frost and Nick Webster were looking for hunting violators when they saw on the seat of Stietz's parked vehicle an empty gun case, buck lure and a tree stand seat. They proceeded onto Stietz's property.
According to briefs attorneys filed with the court:
Frost and Webster located Stietz and called to him from a distance that they were wardens. When they were nearer to Stietz, they did not re-identify themselves as wardens but asked Stietz if he had seen any deer. Stietz replied that he had but that he was not hunting. Frost asked if the Weatherby rifle Stietz was carrying was loaded and Stietz said it was. Frost asked to see it but Stietz refused. Frost stepped closer, asked again, grabbed Stietz by the shirt and reached for the rifle. The wardens wrestled with Stietz for the rifle with Frost ending up with it while falling to the ground.
Webster drew his handgun on Stietz and Stietz drew his pistol on Webster. A standoff ensued with Stietz claiming he feared for his life from the two blaze orange-clad strangers. The wardens wore official insignia on their caps and shoulders but Stietz said he could not see it.
Webster used a radio microphone clipped to his collar to summon help while Stietz kept his pistol pointed at Webster. When a Lafayette County deputy sheriff responded, the wardens retreated to the deputy's squad car. Then, Stietz unloaded the pistol, put it on the ground and was taken into custody.
Stietz was tried and convicted of resisting arrest and pointing a firearm at a conservation warden. Green County Circuit Judge James Beer sentenced Stietz to a year in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
A state appeals court rejected Stietz's request for a new trial on grounds he was not allowed to claim he was acting in self-defense. Also, the wardens violated his Second Amendment right to arm himself and the wardens trespassed on his private property making their arrest of him an unlawful seizure.
Stietz's attorney, Charles Giesen, will argue next month before the state Supreme Court that Beer erred by not allowing jurors to consider that Stietz was acting in self-defense when he was confronted by two trespassing armed strangers who demanded his rifle. Stietz did not know the men were wardens as he did not hear them call out to him from a distance, their insignia was not visible and he did not recognized them on sight.
The threshold to introduce a self-defense claim at trial is low, Giesen wrote the court, and the undisputed facts more than satisfied that minimum requirement.
Jurors, not the judge, should have decided whether there was reason to believe that Stietz pointed his pistol at Webster because he felt his life was being threatened.
According to their brief, the state will argue that Stietz's self-defense claim failed as he likely knew the two men were wardens. When Frost identified himself as a warden from only 20 yards away Stietz's "head snapped and looked right at us," Frost testified. Seconds later, Webster identified himself as a warden.
While Stietz argues on appeal that a warden shined a flashlight toward him making it impossible for him to see their insignia, he testified at trial that the wardens did not shine a flashlight on him.
"Stietz is not entitled to any better version of the facts than he himself testified to," Assistant Attorney General Sara Shaeffer wrote in her brief.
Shaeffer also argued that Stietz's Second Amendment right to bear arms does not allow him to point one at a law enforcement officer.
The wardens had a reasonable suspicion that Stietz was hunting after dark in violation of state statutes and were authorized to stop and question him. Stietz's refusal to turn over his rifle constituted a threat to the wardens' safety and they had a right to temporarily take it, Shaeffer wrote the court.
Giesen counters that Stietz had a right to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest which occurred when confronted in the dark on his own property. Stietz first suspected that Frost and Webster were wardens when one radioed for help but that was after the standoff had fully developed.
The wardens also overstepped their authority to stop and disarm Stietz because they were acting on a suspected hunting code violation, which is a civil matter. The wardens hunch was uncorroborated by their observations when trespassing on Stietz's property as they heard no shots and saw no hunting activity but heard Stietz say he was only looking for trespassers, Giesen wrote the court.
Stietz is a lifelong beef farmer with no prior criminal history. He and his wife, Sue, of 40-plus years, owned and farmed acreage near Gratiot and the Town of Lamont. He deserves to have the convictions reversed and his civil right restored, Giesen wrote.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Feb. 15 and issue a decision this summer.