Summary
allowing the state to introduce additional testimony after it rested
Summary of this case from State v. CarprueOpinion
No. State 16.
Submitted under sec. (Rule) 251.54 October 31, 1973. —
Decided November 27, 1973.
ERROR to review a judgment and an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: HERBERT J. STEFFES, Circuit judge. Affirmed.
For the plaintiff in error the cause was submitted on the brief of Howard B. Eisenberg, state public defender, and Ronald L. Brandt, assistant state public defender.
For the defendant in error the cause was submitted on the brief of Robert W. Warren, attorney general, and James P. Altman, assistant attorney general.
On October 11, 1971, the plaintiff in error, Arthur Lee Grover, was convicted, after a jury trial, of two counts of attempted first-degree murder. He was sentenced to terms of ten years' imprisonment on the first count and thirty years on the second count; the terms to be served concurrently. A subsequent postconviction motion pursuant to sec. 974.06, Stats., was filed, heard and denied.
The plaintiff in error obtained writs of error to review both the judgment and the order.
The plaintiff in error principally challenges (1) the trial court's rulings which allowed the state to recall witnesses after the state had rested and the plaintiff in error had made a motion to dismiss upon the ground of the insufficiency of the proof of the charge, and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of guilt as to attempted first-degree murder.
We have examined the trial record, the postconviction motion record, including the extensive memorandum opinion by the trial court, and the briefs of counsel. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in allowing the state to introduce additional testimony after it rested. Sec. 972.10(3), Stats. We further conclude the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty of both counts of attempted first-degree murder. Lock v. State (1966), 31 Wis.2d 110, 114, 115, 142 N.W.2d 183.
We have found no abuse of discretion, no error, nor any other adequate basis for ordering a new trial in the interest of justice under sec. 251.09, Stats.
By the Court. — Judgment and order affirmed.