Opinion
No. 2013AP1180–CR.
2013-10-23
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Dragisa PAVLOVIC, Defendant–Appellant.
State v. Bohannon, 2013 WI App 87, ¶ 30, 349 Wis.2d 368, 835 N.W.2d 262 (citation omitted). The test is the same “whether the trier of the facts is a court or a jury.” Krueger v. State, 84 Wis.2d 272, 283, 267 N.W.2d 602 (1978) (quoting White v. State, 45 Wis.2d 672, 677–78, 173 N.W.2d 649 (1970)). An appellate court “must examine the record to find facts that support upholding the [fact finder's] decision to convict.” Hayes, 273 Wis.2d 1, ¶ 57, 681 N.W.2d 203. Pavlovic contends that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a verdict based on this count, arguing that no evidence was offered showing he had contact with his wife, a prohibited person, on July 23, 2008, but rather that the evidence only related to Pavlovic's contact with her residence. The State contends that the probable cause section of the complaint made clear that the July 23, 2008 charge was because of Pavlovic's contact with his wife's residence, not with his wife. It relies on Wis. Stat. § 971.26 in essentially contending that use of the words “prohibited persons” in the charging language for Count 1, instead of “prohibited residences,” was a mere defect in the form of the complaint and should not render the verdict invalid. We agree with the State.