COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED April 8, 2008 David R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT I |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Demetrius D. Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before Wedemeyer, Fine and Kessler, JJ.
¶1 PER CURIAM. A jury found Demetrius D.
Anderson guilty of having been a felon in possession of a firearm, a violation
of Wis. Stat. § 941.29(2)(a) (2003-04)[1]
and carrying a concealed weapon, a violation of § 941.23 (2003-04).
¶2 Two Milwaukee police officers were on patrol when they heard three or four gunshots. They drove to a liquor store where they believed the shots had come from, and they saw two males running down the street. According to police testimony, the night was cold and no other people were on the street. Officer Patrick Elm testified that he and his partner drove toward the two males to investigate whether they might have been involved in the shooting or whether they might have witnessed it. They stopped the two males and approached them to investigate.
¶3 Officer Elm testified that, when he and his partner were
about ten feet from the two, he saw the male subsequently identified as
Anderson “pull his right hand out of [his] coat pocket and a black object fall”
to the ground. He testified that the
ground was covered with about three inches of fresh snow, and that he determined
that the object
¶4 On appeal,
¶5 The standard of review is well-settled. A reviewing court must accept the findings of
the trier of fact unless the evidence, viewed most favorably to the State and
the conviction, is so lacking in probative value and force, that no reasonable
trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Poellinger, 153
¶6 There was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Even though much of the evidence was
“circumstantial,” the “circumstances taken together” were sufficiently
conclusive to result in “a reasonable and moral certainty” that
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5.