Submitted under sec. (Rule) 251.54 October 3, 1973.
PER CURIAM.
After reviewing the record in this case and the circumstantial evidence amassed by the prosecution, the court concludes the jury in this case acting reasonably could have been convinced of the plaintiff in error's guilt of the crime of arson, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the test applied by this court when the sufficiency of the evidence is raised. Bautista v. State (1971),
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.