CCW — sufficiency of the evidence

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

CCW — sufficiency of the evidence

In a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon, the jury is not required to determine whether a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol operated by “force of gunpowder.”

“Rather, the jury was required to decide whether the pistol was a ‘firearm’ for the purposes of determining whether it was a dangerous weapon. Spingola testified in detail as to the circumstances leading to his discovery of the weapon. Spingola and Mrozinski both identified the gun as a loaded .38 caliber semi-automatic pistol. Mrozinski and Reifschneider both interchangeably referred to the weapon as a ‘firearm’ and a ‘gun.’ Further, in weighing the evidence, the jury was permitted to take into account matters of common knowledge, observations and experience in the affairs of life. See WIS JI—CRIMINAL 195; see also State v. Alexander, 214 Wis. 2d 628, 648, 571 N.W.2d 662 (1997) (‘A strength of our jury system is that “jurors … bring their experiences, philosophies, and common sense to bear in their deliberations.”’) (citation omitted). Common knowledge suggests that at this point in time, one would have to be devoid of any media source not to understand that firearms fire bullets as a result of ignited gunpowder. The operation of firearms is constantly depicted in movies, television, video games and books. Testimony explaining the obvious, that the pistol operated by force of gunpowder, was not necessary to prove that it was a dangerous weapon.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP630-CR State v. Powell

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Konkol, J., Kessler, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Kaiser, Richard L., South Milwaukee; For Respondent: Loebel, Karen A., Milwaukee; Whelan, Maura F.J., Madison