Van Haltren v. State

124 N.W. 1039, 142 Wis. 143, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 174
Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided February 22, 1910·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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.

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

Van Haltren v. State, 124 N.W. 1039, 142 Wis. 143, 1910 Wisc. LEXIS 174 (Wis. 1910).

124 N.W. 1039 (Van Haltren v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Fischer
279 N.W. 661 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1938)
Link v. State
259 N.W. 428 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1935)
State v. Hintz
229 N.W. 54 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1930)
Clemens v. State
185 N.W. 209 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1922)
Olson v. State
127 N.W. 975 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1910)