Athos v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1929 |
| Citation | 199 Wis. 228,225 N.W. 692 |
| Parties | ATHOS v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Municipal Court of Milwaukee County; George A. Shaughnessy, Judge.
Phillip Athos was convicted of statutory rape, and he brings error. Affirmed.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was convicted in the municipal court of Milwaukee county of the crime of statutory rape, and brings this writ of error to review the judgment.Omar T. McMahon, of Milwaukee, for plaintiff in error.
John W. Reynolds, Atty. Gen., George A. Bowman, Dist. Atty., and George B. Skogmo and Louis S. Wiener, Asst. Dist. Attys., all of Milwaukee, for the State.
[1] Defendant's main contention is that the judgment is not supported by the evidence. The complaining witness, a girl 15 years of age, testified that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her at the home of her parents, at about 10 o'clock Sunday morning November 18, 1928, and that he had had intercourse with her eight times between August and November. A younger sister of the complaining witness testified that she saw the defendant leaving the house upon the Sunday in question. It is admitted by the defendant that when the complaining witness discovered that she was pregnant she went to see the defendant about it. The defendant denies that he had intercourse with her at the time in question or any other time.
There is nothing extraordinary about this state of the evidence. Convictions upon this kind of evidence have been sustained upon innumerable occasions. There is nothing incredible about the testimony of the complaining witness. It does not bear upon its face evidence of its unreliability. Upon various points the defendant's testimony was contradicted by three or four witnesses. Either he or such other witnesses testified falsely. Under such circumstances the jury declined to believe his testimony. We see no reason for disturbing their verdict.
[2] The complaining witness, her sister, and her father and mother testified that she was 15 years of age. Defendant insists that this testimony should be disregarded, because they were unable to testify as to the year in which complaining witness was born. It was a Greek and uneducated family. The fact that upon cross-examination they were unable to state the year in which the complaining witness was born cannot be held to destroy their testimony that she was 15 years of age.
[3][4] It is further insisted that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gauthier v. State
...one of understanding testified to a completed act of sexual intercourse, it is sufficient proof of penetration.' Athos v. State (1929), 199 Wis. 228, 230, 225 N.W. 692; Cleaveland v. State (1933), 211 Wis. 565, 248 N.W. 408, The record shows that the complaining witness, in response to a qu......
-
Baldwin v. State
...certiorari denied 383 U.S. 916, 86 S.Ct. 910, 15 L.Ed.2d 671; Cleaveland v. State (1933), 211 Wis. 565, 248 N.W. 408; Athos v. State (1929), 199 Wis. 228, 225 N.W. 692. At the time of the incident, the complainant was without mental or physical The defendant advances the spurious argument t......
-
Cleaveland v. State
...essential element of the offense. Gladys, however, testified that she had intercourse with the defendant that evening. In Athos v. State, 199 Wis. 228, 225 N. W. 692, it was said: “When one of understanding testifies to a completed act of sexual intercourse, it is sufficient proof of penetr......
- Eagle River Bldg. & Supply Co. v. Peck