"{\"id\": \"8670192\", \"name\": \"Fite, Plaintiff in error, v. State, Defendant in error\", \"name_abbreviation\": \"Fite v. State\", \"decision_date\": \"1973-06-05\", \"docket_number\": \"No. State 25\", \"first_page\": \"739\", \"last_page\": \"739\", \"citations\": \"58 Wis. 2d 739\", \"volume\": \"58\", \"reporter\": \"Wisconsin Reports Second\", \"court\": \"Wisconsin Supreme Court\", \"jurisdiction\": \"Wisconsin\", \"last_updated\": \"2021-08-11T00:41:04.436215+00:00\", \"provenance\": \"CAP\", \"judges\": \"\", \"parties\": \"Fite, Plaintiff in error, v. State, Defendant in error.\", \"head_matter\": \"Fite, Plaintiff in error, v. State, Defendant in error.\\nNo. State 25.\\nSubmitted May 3, 1973.\\nDecided June 5, 1973.\\n(Also reported in 207 N. W. 2d 672.)\\nFor the plaintiff in error the cause was submitted on the brief of J. D. McKay of Green Bay.\\nFor the defendant in error the cause was submitted on the brief of Robert W. Warren, attorney general, and James H. McDermott, assistant attorney general.\", \"word_count\": \"184\", \"char_count\": \"1001\", \"text\": \"Per Curiam.\\nThe court concludes the trial court correctly and completely responded to the jury's inquiry of whether the defendant could be convicted on only an accomplice's testimony. Testimony of an accomplice, even if it is uncorroborated, can support a verdict of guilty if it is of such a nature that it is entitled to belief. Jandrt v. State (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 497, 499, 168 N. W. 2d 602; see also: Cheney v. State (1969), 44 Wis. 2d 454, 467, 468, 171 N. W. 2d 339, 174 N. W. 2d 1.\\nTherefore, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial.\\nThe order is affirmed.\"}"