Lee v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Lee v. State

210 N.W.2d 774, 60 Wis. 2d 756, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1393

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 2, 1973

DocketNo. State 137

StatusPublished

This text of 210 N.W.2d 774 (Lee v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. State, 210 N.W.2d 774, 60 Wis. 2d 756, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1393 (Wis. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the plaintiff in error’s conviction for armed robbery, party to a crime, the court concludes, as it did in the companion case, Clifford Lee v. State of Wisconsin, State No. 156, that the evidence presented was sufficient that the trial court, as the trier of fact, could be convinced of this defendant’s guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff in error’s argument that the state’s failure to produce an alleged eyewitness to the armed robbery to testify at the trial raised a presumption that the witness’ testimony would have been adverse to the state, has been rejected by this court in Quinn v. State (1971), 50 Wis. 2d 96, 183 N. W. 2d 61. There it was noted the state does not have the burden of producing every possible eyewitness to a crime. Id. at page 99.

With respect to the issue raised by this plaintiff in error (defendant) objecting to the trial court’s characterization of the defense testimony as “organized perjury,” this court concludes the defendant was not denied a fair trial. A review of the record reveals this remark was made by the trial court after the finding of guilt had been made. There is nothing to indicate the trial court permitted its disbelief of the defense witness’ testimony to interfere with its judgment on the issue of the defendant’s guilt on the instant offense. See Lange v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 569, 196 N. W. 2d 680.

The court concludes this is not an appropriate case in which to exercise its discretionary authority to grant a new trial in the interest of justice.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the plaintiff in error’s conviction for armed robbery, party to a crime, the court concludes, as it did in the companion case, Clifford Lee v. State of Wisconsin, State No. 156, that the evidence presented was sufficient that the trial court, as the trier of fact, could be convinced of this defendant’s guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The plaintiff in error’s argument that the state’s failure to produce an alleged eyewitness to the armed robbery to testify at the trial raised a presumption that the witness’ testimony would have been adverse to the state, has been rejected by this court in Quinn v. State (1971), 50 Wis. 2d 96, 183 N. W. 2d 61. There it was noted the state does not have the burden of producing every possible eyewitness to a crime. Id. at page 99.

With respect to the issue raised by this plaintiff in error (defendant) objecting to the trial court’s characterization of the defense testimony as “organized perjury,” this court concludes the defendant was not denied a fair trial. A review of the record reveals this remark was made by the trial court after the finding of guilt had been made. There is nothing to indicate the trial court permitted its disbelief of the defense witness’ testimony to interfere with its judgment on the issue of the defendant’s guilt on the instant offense. See Lange v. State (1972), 54 Wis. 2d 569, 196 N. W. 2d 680.

The court concludes this is not an appropriate case in which to exercise its discretionary authority to grant a new trial in the interest of justice.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 N.W.2d 774, 60 Wis. 2d 756, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-wis-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack