Shillcutt v. State

The following opinion was filed February 16, 1977.

(on motion for rehearing). On motion for rehearing, our attention has been called to erroneous statements in the decision.

For that reason the following, which appears at 74 Wis.2d 642, 645, 247 N.W.2d 694, 695 (1976), is stricken:

“We can find no evidence in the record in this case which will support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that plaintiff in error solicited Stanley or Auggie or the unidentified ‘trick’ for Joan. It is an equally tenable inference that each customer contacted plaintiff in error, rather than the other way around.”