Case ID: wis-2d_60/html/0771-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beckett, Plaintiff in error, v. State, Defendant in error.
    
      No. State 142.
    
    
      Submitted under sec. (Rule) 251.54 October 3, 1973.
    
    
      Decided October 30, 1973.
    
    (Also reported in 211 N. W. 2d 514.)
    For the plaintiff in error the cause was submitted on the brief of Arthur B. Nathan of Racine.
    For the defendant in error the cause was submitted on the brief of Robert W. Warren, attorney general, and James P. Altman, assistant attorney general.
   Per Curiam.

After reviewing the record in this case and the circumstantial evidence amassed by the prosecution, the court concludes the jury in this case acting reasonably could have been convinced of the plaintiff in error’s guilt of the crime of arson, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the test applied by this court when the sufficiency of the evidence is raised. Bautista v. State (1971), 53 Wis. 2d 218, 191 N. W. 2d 725; State v. Kitkowski (1969), 44 Wis. 2d 259, 170 N. W. 2d 703.

The court also concludes the imposition of a ten-year sentence on the plaintiff in error for the arson of an occupied dwelling was not an abuse of discretion and the sentence was not excessive under the circumstances of this case.

The judgment is affirmed.