Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fox v. State
Citations: 210 N.W.2d 722; 60 Wis. 2d 462; 1973 Wisc. LEXIS 1357Docket: State 113
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; October 2, 1973; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed the sufficiency of evidence in the burglary conviction of the defendant, FOX, in case No. State 113. The court confirmed that the elements of burglary—intentional entry, without consent, and with intent to steal—were not disputed. However, the defense argued that the evidence did not sufficiently establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that FOX and his companion, Landerman, were the individuals who committed the burglary. The court noted that circumstantial evidence could support a conviction. It emphasized that the standard for sufficiency is whether the evidence presented, when favorably viewed for the state, is adequate for a reasonable trier of fact to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Key circumstantial evidence included: 1. **Place of Apprehension**: FOX and Landerman were observed by police in front of the burglarized drugstore at 3:05 a.m., a time likely post-burglary when interruptions were minimal. 2. **Flight from Police**: Their immediate flight upon seeing police was interpreted as an attempt to evade arrest, which is relevant to establishing intent. 3. **Possession of a Pinholed Flashlight**: FOX carried a flashlight with a pinholed lens, which, while not a burglary tool by statutory definition, was deemed useful for searching dark areas, indicating potential intent to commit burglary. These factors collectively contributed to the court's conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The defendant's attempt to discard a flashlight while fleeing from police is relevant to understanding his intent in possessing it. His companion, found at 3:05 a.m., carried a gym bag with a cotton glove, a leather glove, and an empty pillowcase, leading to reasonable inferences that these items were intended to conceal fingerprints and transport stolen goods. The nature of the burglary involved a pharmacy, with only a bottle of Robatussin A.C. taken, indicating a specific focus on drugs, supported by evidence of drug use from both defendants. The trial court considered the circumstances, including the prying open of drug cabinets and the defendants' statements about drug use, as indicative of intent to commit burglary. Although the explanation offered by Landerman for their presence was not implausible, the combination of suspicious items—such as the flashlight and gloves—strengthened the case against them. The trial court determined that, while no single fact proved guilt, the overall circumstances, when viewed collectively, led to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. On appeal, the court affirmed that the circumstantial evidence was indeed sufficient to support the trial court's finding of guilt. Judgment is affirmed by the Court. Key legal precedents and statutes referenced include Sec. 943.10, highlighting relevant case law such as State v. Hall, Taylor v. State, Jensen v. State, Lock v. State, and State v. Barclay, which inform the decision. The Court notes the necessity for a burglary tool to be designed for breaking into a building as outlined in Sec. 943.12. Testimony from Frederick Boris, pharmacy owner, indicates that Robatussin A. C. is an exempt narcotic requiring a purchaser's signature and contains codeine, which can induce euphoric effects. The Court also reflects on the impracticality of an ordinary citizen possessing multiple screwdrivers in a vehicle, referencing behaviors typical to garages rather than private cars, as established in prior cases.