State v. Escobedo
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
We decline to review the defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. A perusal of the record reveals no motion in the trial court for either a new trial or a motion to set aside the verdict on the alleged insufficiency of the evidence.
We stated in State v. Van Beek (1966), 31 Wis. 2d 51, 141 N. W. 2d 873, that we would decline to review a conviction on this basis unless the trial court was given the opportunity to examine the very questions brought on appeal. We decided in Van Beek that only in the face of “compelling circumstances” would this court…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lock v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- State Ex Rel. Simos v. BurkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
- Commodore v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Bridges v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1945
- Finger v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- Management Computer Services, Inc. v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. SchumacherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. BoeckWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
- Kolpin v. Pioneer Power & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
- Rahhal v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1971
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.