MADISON - A Gratiot farmer was denied his right to argue self-defense at trial for resisting game wardens who forcibly disarmed him at the end of the 2012 deer gun hunting season, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
By a 4-2 vote, with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley not participating, the state's high court concluded that Robert J. Stietz's constitutional right to present a self-defense argument before jurors was erroneously denied by visiting Green County Circuit Court Judge James Beer.
"The evidence was sufficient ... because a reasonable fact-finder could have determined that the defendant reasonably believed that the two men who accosted him with weapons on his (uncle's) land ... were not wardens with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; that the defendant reasonably believed that the two men were trespassers hunting illegally," Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote in the 24-page decision.
The ruling overturns an appeals opinion upholding the conviction, orders a new trial for Stietz and restores his record of no prior convictions.
Conservation Wardens Joseph Frost and Nick Webster were looking for hunting violators in November 2012 when they saw an empty gun case, buck lure and a tree stand seat on the seat of Stietz's parked vehicle. They proceeded onto Stietz's property in the town of Lamont. Stietz also was walking the property looking for trespassers and later said he did not hear the two men call out that they were wardens.
When Frost and Webster neared 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 .357 caliber 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 in what daylight remained at 5 p.m. that day.
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. Stietz then unloaded the pistol, put it on the ground and was taken into custody.
Stietz, 70, was convicted of resisting arrest and pointing a firearm at a conservation warden. Beer sentenced Stietz to a year in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Stietz served the sentence as Beer rejected Stietz's request for a stay pending appeal.
Stietz's attorney, Charles Giesen of Madison argued before the state Supreme Court in February that there was sufficient evidence for Beer to allow jurors to consider Stietz was acting in self-defense.
According to the majority opinion:
Wisconsin law sets a "low bar" for a defendant to claim self-defense. A defendant needs to show only "some evidence" to be able to have a judge give jurors a self-defense instruction and it's up to the jury to decide whether the defendant is telling the truth.
The state argued on appeal that Steitz's version was "incredible" on its face and not sufficient to warrant a self-defense instruction.
Evidence that Stietz was in fear for his life from the wardens came from his trial testimony.
"I was scared, darn scared," Stietz told jurors. "At that very instant I had the pistol in my right pocket and I drew my pistol ... I said, I have the right to protect myself which I am doing at this time ... someone else pulled their pistol out and I was fearful for my life so I drew mine so I would not get shot," Stietz testified.
Stietz said he saw Webster fumbling to pull a handgun from a holster on his hip. At trial, the three men agreed that Webster pulled out his handgun first and pointed it at the defendant. Frost then drew his handgun and pointed it at Stietz. The defendant reached for his own handgun because, as he testified, he thought "my God, he's going to shoot."
The court did not totally accept Stietz's one-side view of the incident as representing the whole story. The opinion called Stietz's testimony inconsistent and contradictory and at times even supported the wardens' version of the encounter. Flawed as it may be, Stietz's account did provide an adequate factual basis to show that he was exercising his right to defend himself. It was the jury's job to believe him or not.
The jury acquitted Stietz on four of the six charges against him which suggests they believed some or all of his testimony. Had the self-defense instruction been given, Stietz might have been acquitted on the two other charges, according to the opinion.
In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler quoted Beer saying that Stietz was very fortunate he was not shot for pulling a handgun on an officer.
While jurors acquitted Stietz of charges stemming from wrestling the officers for his rifle, holding a handgun on them during a half-hour standoff was "a bridge too far."
The majority opinion encourages citizens taking the law into their own hands and pointing a pistol at an officer which increases the chance of an unfortunate outcome, Ziegler wrote.
Monday was Stietz's birthday and Giesen said his client "couldn't be happier about getting a favorable decision."
Giesen disagreed that the ruling expands a person's right to confront a law enforcement official as the wardens were not arresting Stietz and did not have lawful reason to be on his property.
"I hope it will encourage law enforcement to respect a person's (constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure) as Mr. Stietz was accosted by trespassing wardens ... There is no right to resist a peaceful but unlawful arrest but they weren't arresting him they were assaulting him," Giesen said.
Johnny Koremenos, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, said the decision was disappointing and it will be up to the Lafayette County district attorney to decide whether to re-try the case and determine if she can prevail when the self-defense instruction is given to the jury.
District Attorney Jenna Gill had no comment on the opinion Tuesday.
By a 4-2 vote, with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley not participating, the state's high court concluded that Robert J. Stietz's constitutional right to present a self-defense argument before jurors was erroneously denied by visiting Green County Circuit Court Judge James Beer.
"The evidence was sufficient ... because a reasonable fact-finder could have determined that the defendant reasonably believed that the two men who accosted him with weapons on his (uncle's) land ... were not wardens with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; that the defendant reasonably believed that the two men were trespassers hunting illegally," Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote in the 24-page decision.
The ruling overturns an appeals opinion upholding the conviction, orders a new trial for Stietz and restores his record of no prior convictions.
Conservation Wardens Joseph Frost and Nick Webster were looking for hunting violators in November 2012 when they saw an empty gun case, buck lure and a tree stand seat on the seat of Stietz's parked vehicle. They proceeded onto Stietz's property in the town of Lamont. Stietz also was walking the property looking for trespassers and later said he did not hear the two men call out that they were wardens.
When Frost and Webster neared 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 .357 caliber 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 in what daylight remained at 5 p.m. that day.
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. Stietz then unloaded the pistol, put it on the ground and was taken into custody.
Stietz, 70, was convicted of resisting arrest and pointing a firearm at a conservation warden. Beer sentenced Stietz to a year in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Stietz served the sentence as Beer rejected Stietz's request for a stay pending appeal.
Stietz's attorney, Charles Giesen of Madison argued before the state Supreme Court in February that there was sufficient evidence for Beer to allow jurors to consider Stietz was acting in self-defense.
According to the majority opinion:
Wisconsin law sets a "low bar" for a defendant to claim self-defense. A defendant needs to show only "some evidence" to be able to have a judge give jurors a self-defense instruction and it's up to the jury to decide whether the defendant is telling the truth.
The state argued on appeal that Steitz's version was "incredible" on its face and not sufficient to warrant a self-defense instruction.
Evidence that Stietz was in fear for his life from the wardens came from his trial testimony.
"I was scared, darn scared," Stietz told jurors. "At that very instant I had the pistol in my right pocket and I drew my pistol ... I said, I have the right to protect myself which I am doing at this time ... someone else pulled their pistol out and I was fearful for my life so I drew mine so I would not get shot," Stietz testified.
Stietz said he saw Webster fumbling to pull a handgun from a holster on his hip. At trial, the three men agreed that Webster pulled out his handgun first and pointed it at the defendant. Frost then drew his handgun and pointed it at Stietz. The defendant reached for his own handgun because, as he testified, he thought "my God, he's going to shoot."
The court did not totally accept Stietz's one-side view of the incident as representing the whole story. The opinion called Stietz's testimony inconsistent and contradictory and at times even supported the wardens' version of the encounter. Flawed as it may be, Stietz's account did provide an adequate factual basis to show that he was exercising his right to defend himself. It was the jury's job to believe him or not.
The jury acquitted Stietz on four of the six charges against him which suggests they believed some or all of his testimony. Had the self-defense instruction been given, Stietz might have been acquitted on the two other charges, according to the opinion.
In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler quoted Beer saying that Stietz was very fortunate he was not shot for pulling a handgun on an officer.
While jurors acquitted Stietz of charges stemming from wrestling the officers for his rifle, holding a handgun on them during a half-hour standoff was "a bridge too far."
The majority opinion encourages citizens taking the law into their own hands and pointing a pistol at an officer which increases the chance of an unfortunate outcome, Ziegler wrote.
Monday was Stietz's birthday and Giesen said his client "couldn't be happier about getting a favorable decision."
Giesen disagreed that the ruling expands a person's right to confront a law enforcement official as the wardens were not arresting Stietz and did not have lawful reason to be on his property.
"I hope it will encourage law enforcement to respect a person's (constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure) as Mr. Stietz was accosted by trespassing wardens ... There is no right to resist a peaceful but unlawful arrest but they weren't arresting him they were assaulting him," Giesen said.
Johnny Koremenos, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, said the decision was disappointing and it will be up to the Lafayette County district attorney to decide whether to re-try the case and determine if she can prevail when the self-defense instruction is given to the jury.
District Attorney Jenna Gill had no comment on the opinion Tuesday.