Baldwin v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. S,S |
| Citation | 59 Wis.2d 116,207 N.W.2d 630 |
| Parties | Michael L. BALDWIN, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Wisconsin, Defendant in Error. tate 113. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Following a trial by jury, plaintiff in error, Michael L. Baldwin (hereinafter defendant), was convicted of rape, in violation of sec. 944.01, Stats., and false imprisonment, in violation of sec. 940.30. He was ultimately sentenced to prison for indeterminate terms of not more than five years on the rape conviction and two years on the false imprisonment conviction. Sentences were to run concurrently. The trial court denied the defendant's subsequent motions to set aside the judgment of conviction and for a new trial. Writs of error issued to review the judgment of conviction and the order denying the defendant's motion for a new trial.
Robert G. Felker, Brookfield, for plaintiff in error.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Steven M. Schur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for defendant in error.
The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction on the charge of rape. 1 The defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to show that sexual intercourse occurred between himself and the complainant, by force and against her will.
The facts are in sharp dispute and the determination of guilt depended upon whether the jury believed the defendant or the complainant. The supreme court is not the place to re-argue questions of credibility. 2 The credibility of witnesses and the weight to accord their conflicting testimony is the proper function of the jury, and only if the evidence that the jury has relied upon is inherently or patently incredible or insufficient will this court substitute its judgment for that of the jury. 3
The series of events which resulted in the defendant's conviction commenced in downtown Milwaukee on July 31, 1971, at approximately 10:45 p.m. and culminated later that same night in an isolated rural area in Waukesha county.
The complainant, then eighteen years of age, was alone driving her boyfriend's car west on West Wisconsin avenue in the city of Milwaukee. At the stoplight at 10th street and Wisconsin avenue, the defendant, then twenty-one years of age, and a companion in defendant's car, pulled alongside the complainant, made motions with their hands to pull over, and attempted to engage the complainant in conversation. The defendant and his companion were both strangers to the complainant. Complainant ignored their attempts to engage her in conversation and drove off when the light changed. The defendant and his companion followed her down Wisconsin avenue to 45th street and then onto Bluemound road. At approximately 57th street and Bluemound road either the defendant or his companion threw a can of beer at complainant's car.
The complainant testified that at 61st street and Bluemound road the defendant and his companion 'swerved their car to mine, I had to turn the corner onto about 61st street'; that she stopped her car; and that the defendant and his companion stopped their car in front of hers, and got out and walked back to her. They asked the complainant to go out with them for a couple of drinks. The complainant declined their offer, and said she was going home and had no intention of going with them. Complainant drove off and continued to drive west on Bluemound road.
As the complainant turned off Bluemound road and on to Honey Creek Parkway, the defendant followed her and drove his car alongside hers down the parkway. The defendant and his companion yelled, called her names, swore and demanded that she pull over. At 84th street and Honey Creek Parkway the defendant forced her to pull off the road by driving his car in front of complainant's car and stopping at an angle to her car. The defendant and his companion got out of their car and walked over to complainant's car. Defendant then forced her to roll her window down through threats to the effect that unless the complainant rolled her window down he would break it in her face. Complainant testified that she rolled the window down halfway; that the defendant reached in and grabbed her by the throat; and that after the defendant released her throat his companion pulled out a switchblade knife and put it against her neck. Defendant's companion forced his way into the complainant's car.
Defendant returned to his car and drove west on I--94 with his companion, now driving complainant's car, following directly behind. While driving down I--94, defendant's companion attempted to put his hand inside complainant's pants and he grabbed her breast.
The two cars turned off I--94 onto Highway 18 in Waukesha county, drove past the state patrol headquarters located at that intersection, and took an immediate right turn. While the car in which she was riding slowed down to make the turn, complainant jumped from the car. She ran out onto Highway 18 and attempted to wave down passing cars for help. None of the cars stopped. She then ran across the highway into a small open filed toward the state patrol headquarters. During this time defendant had pulled his car into the parking lot in front of the state patrol headquarters. He got out of his car and intercepted the complainant in the field. Although complainant was screaming, 'don't come near me,' defendant, saying he was just going to take her home, ran across the field, grabbed complainant's wrist, pulled her back to his car, and pushed her into it. Complainant testified that she tried to pull away but was unable to do so.
The defendant drove across Highway 18 onto a side road and stopped on top of a hill. At this point, complainant again attempted to flee, but as she started to get out of defendant's car he grabbed her by the hair and pulled her back into his car. Still holding her hair, the defendant drove for approximately 20 minutes until he stopped next to a field in the town of Pewaukee. The defendant pulled the complainant out of the car and across the field. Complainant testified that there were no buildings or lights that she could see in the area.
When they reached the back of the field, defendant ordered her to take her clothes off. The complainant refused. The defendant stated that he had to do what he was going to do for initiation into the 'Outlaws.' Complainant testified that she understood the 'Outlaws' to mean a motorcycle gang in Milwaukee, and that defendant was wearing motorcycle boots, blue jeans with rivets up the sides, and a black T-shirt. When the complainant again refused to take her clothes off, the defendant threatened to take her down to the clubhouse to meet his friends. Complainant testified that she 'figured I didn't have much choice anyway,' so she undressed herself. Defendant then pushed her down and had sexual intercourse with her.
In a criminal prosecution if there is any credible evidence which in any reasonable view supports the verdict it cannot be disturbed on appeal. State v. Wickstrom (1961), 14 Wis.2d 416, 111 N.W.2d 176; State v. Lombardi (1959), 8 Wis.2d 421, 99 N.W.2d 829; State v. Whitney (1945), 247 Wis. 112, 18 N.W.2d 705. At trial, the State must prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; however, on appeal reversal is warranted only when the evidence considered most favorable to the State and conviction, is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of facts acting reasonably could be convinced to the degree of certitude the law defines as beyond a reasonable doubt. State ex rel. Kanieski v. Gagnon (1972), 54 Wis.2d 108, 194 N.W.2d 808; Strait v. State (1969), 41 Wis.2d 552, 164 N.W.2d 505; State v. Davidson (1969), 44 Wis.2d 177, 170 N.W.2d 755; Waukesha County v. Mueller (1967), 34 Wis.2d 628, 150 N.W.2d 364. Therefore, the only question before this court is whether the evidence adduced, believed and rationally considered by the jury was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State ex rel. Kanieski v. Gagnon, supra; Zebrowski v. State (1971), 50 Wis.2d 715, 185 N.W.2d 545; Lock v. State (1966), 31 Wis.2d 110, 142 N.W.2d 183; State v. Johnson (1960), 11 Wis.2d 130, 104 N.W.2d 379; Parke v. State (1931), 204 Wis. 443, 235 N.W. 775.
Rape is defined in sec. 944.01(1), Stats., as sexual intercourse with a woman other than one's wife by force and against her will. 4 In a prosecution for rape, competent evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt not only that defendant committed the acts charged but that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the alleged offense existed.
Section 939.22(36), Stats., defines 'sexual intercourse' for purposes of the criminal code as follows:
"Sexual intercourse' requires only vulvar penetration and does not require emission.'
While actual contact of the sexual organs of a man and a woman and actual penetration into the body of the latter is an essential element of the crime of rape, the degree to which the person of the female is entered is not material. Any actual penetration is sufficient to constitute rape when the other essentials of the crime are present. State v. Crabtree (1941), 237 Wis. 16, 21, 296 N.W. 79; Murphy v. State (1900), 108 Wis. 111, 114, 83 N.W. 1112.
Proof of penetration need not be in any particular form. 5 Where one of understanding testifies to a completed act of sexual intercourse it has been held to be sufficient proof of penetration. Gauthier v. State (1965), 28 Wis.2d 412, 137 N.W.2d 101, 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 disability.
The defendant advances the spurious argument that the evidence is insufficient in that the complainant never saw the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dumer v. State
...61, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 861, 89 S.Ct. 140, 21 L.Ed.2d 129; State v. Herfel (1971), 49 Wis.2d 513, 182 N.W.2d 232; Baldwin v. State (1973), 59 Wis.2d 116, 207 N.W.2d 630. The governing principles in respect to 'utmost resistance' were set out in McLain v. State (1914), 159 Wis. 204, 206, ......
-
State v. Sarinske
...of the first-degree murder of Paul Paulie. This court described the standard on review of a jury verdict in Baldwin v. State, 59 Wis.2d 116, 121, 122, 207 N.W.2d 630, 633 (1973) as "In a criminal prosecution if there is any credible evidence which in any reasonable view supports the verdict......
-
State v. O'Connor
...credible evidence upon which it could do so, the obligation of this court is to sustain the verdict on appeal. Baldwin v. State, 59 Wis.2d 116, 121, 207 N.W.2d 630 (1973). V. Sec. 973.09(1), Stats., provides in "When a person is convicted of a crime, the court may, by order, withhold senten......
-
Sanford v. State
...387 (1957).19 Jonas v. Northeastern Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 44 Wis.2d 347, 351, 171 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1969).20 Baldwin v. State, 59 Wis.2d 116, 118, n. 1, 207 N.W.2d 630, 631, n. 1 (1973), this court holding: 'Alleged error not presented to the trial court on motions after verdict are not entitl......