rehearing">

The following opinion was filed February 16, 1977.

PER CURIAM

(on motion for rehearing). On motion for rehearing, our attention has been called to erroneous statements in the decision.

For that reason the following, which appears at 74 Wis.2d 642, 645, 247 N.W.2d 694, 695 (1976), is stricken:

“We can find no evidence in the record in this case which will support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that plaintiff in error solicited Stanley or Auggie or the unidentified ‘trick’ for Joan. It is an equally tenable inference that each customer contacted plaintiff in error, rather than the other way around.”

In lieu thereof the following is inserted:

“We can find no evidence in the record in this case which will support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that plaintiff in error solicited Auggie for Monica. It is an equally tenable inference that Auggie contacted plaintiff in error, rather than that plaintiff in error solicited Auggie.”

Further, the following, which appears at 247 N.W.2d 692, 696, is stricken:

*646b“The state argues that sec. 944.32, Stats., is an included offense under sec. 944.34.”

In lieu thereof the following is inserted:

“It is argued that sec. 944.32, Stats., is an included offense under sec. 944.34.”

This insertion is identical to the sentence as it appears at 74 Wis.2d 642, 646.

These errors do not otherwise alter the substance of the court’s opinion or the outcome of the case.

The motion for rehearing is denied.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress