Case Name: Van Haltren, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1910-02-22
Citations: 142 Wis. 143
Docket Number: 
Parties: Van Haltren, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.