Legal Opinion

State v. Johnson

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 28, 1960Published

1Opinion of the CourtPIallows, J.

The defendant did not testify or offer any testimony and relies on his presumption of innocence and his claimed insufficiency of the evidence. The evidence against him is entirely circumstantial, but this is not unusual in a criminal case. Not many criminals are caught in the act like a child with his hand in the cooky jar. Circumstantial evidence may be and often is stronger and as convincing as direct evidence. The same rule of the burden of proof in a criminal case applies to circumstantial evidence as to positive, direct evidence; and in both cases the evidence *135must be sufficiently strong…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Ingalls v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Parke v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1931
  3. State v. JohnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Schwantes v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Spick v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API