Case ID: wis_142/html/0143-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RakNes, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Van Haltren, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.
    
      February 4
    
    
      February 22, 1910.
    
    
      Criminal law: Appeal: Sufficiency of evidence.
    
    Tile verdict in a criminal case win not be disturbed on appeal if there is any credible evidence which in any reasonable view supports it.
    Ekrob to review a judgment of the municipal court of ’Milwaukee county: A. C. Bhazee, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Por the plaintiff in error there was a brief by W. J. Ker-■shaw, attorney, and H. L. Baton, of counsel, and oral argument by Mr. Baton.
    
    
      Eor the defendant in error the cause was submitted on the-brief of A. G. Backus, district attorney, and Norman L. Baker, assistant, and the Attorney General, of counsel.
   RakNes, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of the-crime of larceny, and from a judgment entered upon the verdict of guilty he prosecutes a writ of error in this court. The sole ground relied upon for a reversal of such judgment is that the evidence was not sufficient to support tire verdict.. “If there is any credible evidence which in any reasonable view supports a verdict it cannot be disturbed on appeal.” Lam Yee v. State, 132 Wis. 527, 529, 112 N. W. 425, and cases cited. A careful examination of the testimony convinces us that there is sufficient evidence in the record to-support the verdict, having in mind the rule quoted. No useful purpose would be served by summarizing- such evidence in this opinion. .

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.