Pigee v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Pigee v. State

211 N.W.2d 514, 60 Wis. 2d 770, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1402

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 30, 1973

DocketNo. State 141

StatusPublished

This text of 211 N.W.2d 514 (Pigee 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

Pigee v. State, 211 N.W.2d 514, 60 Wis. 2d 770, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1402 (Wis. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court concludes after a review of the record in this attempted first-degree murder case that the jury acting reasonably could have been convinced by the evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff in error when he fired the gun at the victim’s chest had the requisite intent to kill that person.

Furthermore, the court concludes the struggle between the plaintiff in error and the victim after he was shot, was a sufficient intervening extraneous factor but for the occurrence of which, the plaintiff in error would have succeeded in killing the victim. The plaintiff in error [771]*771acted with intent to kill but was unsuccessful in his attempt. See: State v. Damms (1960), 9 Wis. 2d 183, 100 N. W. 2d 592; Huebner v. State (1967), 33 Wis. 2d 505, 147 N. W. 2d 646.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The court concludes after a review of the record in this attempted first-degree murder case that the jury acting reasonably could have been convinced by the evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff in error when he fired the gun at the victim’s chest had the requisite intent to kill that person.

Furthermore, the court concludes the struggle between the plaintiff in error and the victim after he was shot, was a sufficient intervening extraneous factor but for the occurrence of which, the plaintiff in error would have succeeded in killing the victim. The plaintiff in error [771]*771acted with intent to kill but was unsuccessful in his attempt. See: State v. Damms (1960), 9 Wis. 2d 183, 100 N. W. 2d 592; Huebner v. State (1967), 33 Wis. 2d 505, 147 N. W. 2d 646.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 N.W.2d 514, 60 Wis. 2d 770, 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pigee-v-state-wis-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack