 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Knoll5/11/2000
abilitate a defendant. See State v. Foley, 142 Wis. 2d 331, 338, 417 N.W.2d 920, 924 (Ct. App. 1987). Rehabilitation is furthered by requiring those convicted of crimes to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. See id. at 339, 417 N.W.2d at 924 (citing Huggett v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 790, 798-99, 266 N.W.2d 403, 407 (1978)). To allow a defendant who has already been convicted of a crime to focus on the action of a victim to avoid restitution defeats this purpose because it permits him to evade responsibility for his own actions. The supreme court's statement in Sweat that a defendant could not raise contributory negligence as a defense, while not essential to its decision, is consistent with the mandatory nature of restitution and its goals of rehabilitation and punishment, as well as those of compensating the victim.
. Second, bringing the issue of contributory negligence into a restitution proceeding, which by its nature is informal and not a full-blown civil trial, is inconsistent with the nature of the proceedings. See State v. Madlock, 230 Wis. 2d 324, 335, 602 N.W.2d 104, 110 (Ct. App. 1999) (citations omitted). If permitted, it would involve the State in what could be an extended civil proceedings which is not envisioned by Wis. Stat. § 973.20 and would defeat the informal nature of the proceedings. Therefore, we conclude that Knoll may not raise Foust's contributory negligence as a defense to restitution.
CONCLUSION
. We conclude that Foust was not a party to the crime of driving while intoxicated and that Knoll may not raise contributory negligence as a defense to restitution. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Page 1 2 3 4 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|