Wilkie, J.
Two issues are presented by this petition:
1. What is the scope of this court’s review in this habeas corpus proceeding?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction?
Scope of review.
An action for habeas corpus is a collateral proceeding which normally can be used to raise questions concerning the jurisdiction of the convicting court, the validity of the conviction as against a charge that the law under which the defendant was convicted is void, and constitutional defects in the conviction process; it is normally not used to raise such questions as the sufficiency of the evidence.5
In the present case, however, defendant was convicted long before the United States Supreme Court ruled that an indigent criminal defendant has the right to appeal from his conviction with court-appointed counsel.6 In 1952 any appeal of his conviction as an indigent criminal defendant was governed by the provisions of sec. 357.26, Stats. 1951,7 whereunder an appeal was not [113]*113a matter of right but a matter for the discretion of this court. Defendant did not appeal his conviction and was not afforded an appellate review. Under these special circumstances and in accordance with this court’s 1968 opinion, this court invited the present habeas corpus in order to afford the defendant an opportunity to raise questions he could have raised on an appeal.
Sufficiency of the evidence.
While the state must prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,8 on appeal this court’s review is limited to determining whether the evidence adduced, believed and rationally considered by a jury was sufficient to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.9 Reversal is required only when the evidence considered most favorably to the state and the conviction is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of facts acting reasonably could be convinced to that degree of certitude which the law defines as beyond a reasonable doubt.10
A review of the evidence presented in this case demonstrates that as a matter of law no trier of fact could be convinced that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[114]*1141. Direct or Scientific Evidence.
The direct or scientific evidence found at the scene of the crime lacks sufficient probative value to convict the defendant. This conclusion follows from a consideration of the particular items of direct evidence presented on the trial: pubic hair, rope surrounding deceased’s neck, insulation material, rug strands, and dog hairs.
(a) Pubic Hair. Human pubic hair was found at the scene of the crime. The technician from the state crime laboratory compared this pubic hair with a sample of hair taken from the defendant. His testimony was that the hair found at the scene “could have had a common source” with that taken from the defendant, although it could not be identified as defendant’s hair. The analyst further testified that the “common source” could be any human being. Considering that the tavern was a known place of prostitution, the discovery of pubic hair near the body has even less relevance.
(b) Rope. A rope found around deceased’s neck contained material which was said “could have had a common source” with defendant’s trousers. There is no testimony as to how common this material was. The state laboratory employee said that he could not say that the material did come from defendant’s trousers. This is not enough to support the conviction. The expert witness could not testify that the fiber came from defendant’s clothing and the jury, therefore, could not be more certain than the expert witness in passing upon such evidence.11
(c) Insulation Material. Certain insulation material was found on the bedspread and also on the defendant’s trousers. But again, the expert stated only that the material “could have had a common source.” He also could not say how long the material was on either the bedspread or the trousers.
[115]*115(d) Rug. Fibers from a rug in the victim’s room “could have had a common source” with fibers removed from defendant’s trousers.
(e) Dog Hairs. Certain dog hairs were found on the defendant’s person which “could have come from a common source” as that of Miss Bates’ dogs. The record shows that the defendant frequently played with the dead woman’s dogs.
The state concedes that under the 1954 decision of State v. Bradley 12 evidence which “could have come from a common source” is not sufficiently probative to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That decision, in the absence of any statement that the ruling would be prospective only, was retrospective in operation and hence was applicable to the trial in this case.13
The attorney general argues that all of these bits of “common source” evidence, coupled with the failure of defendant to advance any reasonable theory of innocence regarding this evidence, presents a situation in which a jury could find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The direct evidence simply did not have enough probative value to convict this defendant. The testimony of the state crime laboratory’s technician saying that the items “could have had a common source” with the defendant or his clothing did not sufficiently establish a tie-in so that the jury could have concluded therefrom that the defendant committed the alleged crime.
2. Circumstantial Evidence.
The state theorized that between 1 a. m. and 2 a. m. on Sunday morning, June 29th, defendant returned to the Bates’ tavern where he had been about 12:20 a. m. The state further theorized that when he returned to the tavern he raped and killed Miss Bates. There is no evidence to place the defendant in the proximity of [116]*116the tavern after 12:20 a. m. Further, the state concedes that there was no evidence of motive on the part of defendant. Defendant did testify that from the Bates’ tavern he went to the Worzella tavern where he stayed until approximately 1 a. m. He had had several drinks and was having trouble with his car. The ride from the second tavern to his home normally took twenty minutes but on this occasion he testified it took one hour. He stated that he could not be certain of the time because of his intoxication and because he had no watch. Even though defendant was confused and vague about this period of time from 1 to 2 a. m., the state was required to produce some evidence that placed the defendant in the proximity of the tavern after 12:20 a. m. This it failed to do and a reasonable jury could not draw a conclusion placing the defendant at the scene at the crucial time.
Recently in Bautista v. State 14 this court had the occasion to discuss the standard of review in cases relying upon circumstantial evidence:
“. . . A criminal conviction can stand based in whole or in part upon circumstantial evidence. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence is for the trier of fact.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wilkie, J.
Two issues are presented by this petition:
1. What is the scope of this court’s review in this habeas corpus proceeding?
2. Was the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction?
Scope of review.
An action for habeas corpus is a collateral proceeding which normally can be used to raise questions concerning the jurisdiction of the convicting court, the validity of the conviction as against a charge that the law under which the defendant was convicted is void, and constitutional defects in the conviction process; it is normally not used to raise such questions as the sufficiency of the evidence.5
In the present case, however, defendant was convicted long before the United States Supreme Court ruled that an indigent criminal defendant has the right to appeal from his conviction with court-appointed counsel.6 In 1952 any appeal of his conviction as an indigent criminal defendant was governed by the provisions of sec. 357.26, Stats. 1951,7 whereunder an appeal was not [113]*113a matter of right but a matter for the discretion of this court. Defendant did not appeal his conviction and was not afforded an appellate review. Under these special circumstances and in accordance with this court’s 1968 opinion, this court invited the present habeas corpus in order to afford the defendant an opportunity to raise questions he could have raised on an appeal.
Sufficiency of the evidence.
While the state must prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,8 on appeal this court’s review is limited to determining whether the evidence adduced, believed and rationally considered by a jury was sufficient to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.9 Reversal is required only when the evidence considered most favorably to the state and the conviction is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of facts acting reasonably could be convinced to that degree of certitude which the law defines as beyond a reasonable doubt.10
A review of the evidence presented in this case demonstrates that as a matter of law no trier of fact could be convinced that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[114]*1141. Direct or Scientific Evidence.
The direct or scientific evidence found at the scene of the crime lacks sufficient probative value to convict the defendant. This conclusion follows from a consideration of the particular items of direct evidence presented on the trial: pubic hair, rope surrounding deceased’s neck, insulation material, rug strands, and dog hairs.
(a) Pubic Hair. Human pubic hair was found at the scene of the crime. The technician from the state crime laboratory compared this pubic hair with a sample of hair taken from the defendant. His testimony was that the hair found at the scene “could have had a common source” with that taken from the defendant, although it could not be identified as defendant’s hair. The analyst further testified that the “common source” could be any human being. Considering that the tavern was a known place of prostitution, the discovery of pubic hair near the body has even less relevance.
(b) Rope. A rope found around deceased’s neck contained material which was said “could have had a common source” with defendant’s trousers. There is no testimony as to how common this material was. The state laboratory employee said that he could not say that the material did come from defendant’s trousers. This is not enough to support the conviction. The expert witness could not testify that the fiber came from defendant’s clothing and the jury, therefore, could not be more certain than the expert witness in passing upon such evidence.11
(c) Insulation Material. Certain insulation material was found on the bedspread and also on the defendant’s trousers. But again, the expert stated only that the material “could have had a common source.” He also could not say how long the material was on either the bedspread or the trousers.
[115]*115(d) Rug. Fibers from a rug in the victim’s room “could have had a common source” with fibers removed from defendant’s trousers.
(e) Dog Hairs. Certain dog hairs were found on the defendant’s person which “could have come from a common source” as that of Miss Bates’ dogs. The record shows that the defendant frequently played with the dead woman’s dogs.
The state concedes that under the 1954 decision of State v. Bradley 12 evidence which “could have come from a common source” is not sufficiently probative to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That decision, in the absence of any statement that the ruling would be prospective only, was retrospective in operation and hence was applicable to the trial in this case.13
The attorney general argues that all of these bits of “common source” evidence, coupled with the failure of defendant to advance any reasonable theory of innocence regarding this evidence, presents a situation in which a jury could find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The direct evidence simply did not have enough probative value to convict this defendant. The testimony of the state crime laboratory’s technician saying that the items “could have had a common source” with the defendant or his clothing did not sufficiently establish a tie-in so that the jury could have concluded therefrom that the defendant committed the alleged crime.
2. Circumstantial Evidence.
The state theorized that between 1 a. m. and 2 a. m. on Sunday morning, June 29th, defendant returned to the Bates’ tavern where he had been about 12:20 a. m. The state further theorized that when he returned to the tavern he raped and killed Miss Bates. There is no evidence to place the defendant in the proximity of [116]*116the tavern after 12:20 a. m. Further, the state concedes that there was no evidence of motive on the part of defendant. Defendant did testify that from the Bates’ tavern he went to the Worzella tavern where he stayed until approximately 1 a. m. He had had several drinks and was having trouble with his car. The ride from the second tavern to his home normally took twenty minutes but on this occasion he testified it took one hour. He stated that he could not be certain of the time because of his intoxication and because he had no watch. Even though defendant was confused and vague about this period of time from 1 to 2 a. m., the state was required to produce some evidence that placed the defendant in the proximity of the tavern after 12:20 a. m. This it failed to do and a reasonable jury could not draw a conclusion placing the defendant at the scene at the crucial time.
Recently in Bautista v. State 14 this court had the occasion to discuss the standard of review in cases relying upon circumstantial evidence:
“. . . A criminal conviction can stand based in whole or in part upon circumstantial evidence. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence is for the trier of fact. In reviewing the evidence to challenge a finding of fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the finding. Reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence can support a finding of fact and, if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the evidence, the inference which supports the finding is the one that must be adopted. Our review of the record in response to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is so limited by these rules.” 15
The precise question in this case on this point thus becomes whether it was reasonable to draw the in[117]*117ference that because defendant may have taken forty minutes more to go home from the tavern he stopped at the tavern to rape and murder Miss Bates. The only evidence of this fact is the circumstantial evidence— there is no direct evidence.
A jury may draw reasonable inferences from facts established by circumstantial evidence, but it may not indulge in inferences wholly unsupported by any evidence.16 The inferences must be supported by facts, and the defendant cannot be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture.17 In this case, taking the evidence most favorable to the state, we find that the only established fact is that defendant took forty minutes too long in getting home. There is no fact to support the proposition that he went back to the Bates tavern, that he had some reason to kill Miss Bates, or that he committed the crime.
3. Conclusion.
The direct scientific evidence is not sufficient to support conviction and the circumstantial evidence is not based upon sufficient facts so that a jury might reasonably infer defendant’s guilt. Therefore, the state’s burden of proof was not met as a matter of law. The petitioner is thus entitled to release from custody and his freedom, without the possibility of a new trial.18
Because reversal is required by the insufficiency of the evidence it is unnecessary to consider the other issues raised by the defendant here.
By the Court. — The petitioner having had a hearing such as he would have had, had the writ of habeas corpus [118]*118been issued, it is considered that the issuance of the writ be omitted and it is adjudged that the judgment of the circuit court is vacated and that the warden of the Wisconsin correctional institution is directed to release the petitioner.