State v. Godsey
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtGehl, J.
Defendant contends that the verdict finds no support in the testimony. The state concedes that the fact that the property, an automobile, was stolen, is an essential element of the crime and that there is no direct evidence of the fact. It contends, however, that there is circumstantial evidence which supports the verdict. The facts relied upon are that defendant failed to produce any evidence of ownership, he did not claim to possess registered title, and his testimony as to how and under what circumstances he came into possession of the automobile is contradictory and unsatisfactory.
We…
2Cited by6 opinions
- CARDIELBoard of Immigration Appeals · 2009
- Barth v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
- State v. LundWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. KordasCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
- State v. TappaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1985
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.