Renner v. State

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Renner v. State

180 N.W.2d 634, 48 Wis. 2d 627, 1970 Wisc. LEXIS 953

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Renner v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 39 Wis. 2d 631 →

Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided November 3, 1970·No. No. State 11·Published

Opinion

Beilfuss, J.

The defendant has raised two questions: (1) Was the circumstantial evidence adduced, believed and rationally considered by the jury sufficient to prove the defendant’s possession of stolen property and the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

(2) Did the trial court err by admitting into evidence certain property allegedly stolen in the three burglaries ?

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the briefs and arguments of counsel; we are of the opinion that the credible evidence in the record, albeit circumstantial, is clearly and overwhelmingly sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty. We are of the further opinion that physical evidence of the crimes received in evidence as exhibits was properly received and was not error.

The questions of law involved in this appeal have been repeatedly discussed and determined in numerous recent cases. To repeat these rules of law would add nothing of a precedential value to our published opinions. Fur[629]*629ther consideration of the issues of this case by an extension of this opinion is neither necessary nor desirable.¹

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

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

Beilfuss, J.

The defendant has raised two questions: (1) Was the circumstantial evidence adduced, believed and rationally considered by the jury sufficient to prove the defendant’s possession of stolen property and the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

(2) Did the trial court err by admitting into evidence certain property allegedly stolen in the three burglaries ?

We have thoroughly reviewed the record, the briefs and arguments of counsel; we are of the opinion that the credible evidence in the record, albeit circumstantial, is clearly and overwhelmingly sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty. We are of the further opinion that physical evidence of the crimes received in evidence as exhibits was properly received and was not error.

The questions of law involved in this appeal have been repeatedly discussed and determined in numerous recent cases. To repeat these rules of law would add nothing of a precedential value to our published opinions. Fur[629]*629ther consideration of the issues of this case by an extension of this opinion is neither necessary nor desirable.¹

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

Renner v. State, 180 N.W.2d 634, 48 Wis. 2d 627, 1970 Wisc. LEXIS 953 (Wis. 1970).

Pincite

180 N.W.2d 634 (Renner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.