State v. Coates
| Decision Date | 29 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-0684-CR-NM,95-0684-CR-NM |
| Citation | 542 N.W.2d 239,198 Wis.2d 389 |
| Parties | NOTICE: UNPUBLISHED OPINION. RULE 809.23(3), RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PROVIDE THAT UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS ARE OF NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT IN LIMITED INSTANCES. STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Garth E. COATES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Winnebago County: ROBERT A. HAWLEY, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Brown, Nettesheim and Snyder, JJ.
Counsel for Garth E. Coates has filed a no merit report pursuant to Rule 809.32, Stats. Coates filed a response challenging his counsel's analysis of some issues and raising additional issues. Upon our independent review of the record as mandated by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we conclude that there is no arguable merit to any issue that could be raised on appeal.
A jury convicted Coates of thirteen counts of sexual contact with young girls, incest, exposure of his genitals and attempting to intimidate three of the victims from reporting the crimes. The counts involve incidents with two of his daughters and three of their friends, occurring at five different times. Coates was sentenced to a total of 199 years in prison for these offenses.
The no merit report addresses the sufficiency of the evidence, whether trial counsel was ineffective and whether the court properly exercised its sentencing discretion. In his response, Coates argues that the State did not present sufficient credible evidence, that his trial counsel was ineffective and that the police, social workers and prosecutors engaged in misconduct in his case.
The State presented sufficient evidence to convict Coates on each of the counts. Each of the victims testified that Coates touched her in her vaginal area. Two of the victims were Coates' children. One victim testified that Coates "flashed her" on one occasion. Several victims testified that Coates threatened them with physical harm and mutilation if they reported the crimes. This testimony, if believed by the jury, is sufficient to support the verdicts. Noting inconsistencies in the victims' testimony and their prior statements to investigators and at the preliminary hearing, Coates argues that the evidence was not credible. It is the jury's function to decide the credibility of witnesses and reconcile any inconsistencies in the testimony. See State v. Toy, 125 Wis.2d 216, 222, 371 N.W.2d 386, 389 (Ct.App.1985).
One of the victims recanted her allegations before trial, but at trial again testified that Coates had sexual contact with her. This evidence was placed before the jury and it chose to believe her trial testimony. Viewing her testimony and the other evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the jury could reasonably have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d 493, 507, 451 N.W.2d 752, 757-58 (1990). Coates argues that this witness' testimony is a total fabrication because she stated that she recanted after visiting her father in jail. The defense introduced evidence of jail records establishing that the recantation occurred the day before she visited her father in jail. The child also testified, however, that Coates' girlfriend told her, prior to the visit with her father, that if she recanted, she could live with her father and his girlfriend in the country and they could raise horses. This information was presented to the jury, and the jury chose to believe the child's trial testimony. It is the jury's task, not this court's, to sift and winnow the credibility of witnesses. Toy, 125 Wis.2d at 222, 371 N.W.2d at 389.
Coates challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to count thirteen, a sexual assault that occurred in a house that was being remodeled. Coates contends that contrary to the child's testimony, the house was fully furnished with five individuals present at the time the sexual assault allegedly occurred. Evidence establishing that the victim was incorrect on incidental details of the crime does not establish any basis for this court to overturn the jury's verdict. See, e.g., id at 221-22, 125 Wis.2d 216, 371 N.W.2d at 388-89.
Coates also argues that the evidence that the child's hymen was intact contradicts the child's testimony. Sexual contact does not require penetration. See § 948.01(5), Stats. To the extent that the child's previous statements to the police indicated that penetration had occurred, the jury could have reasonably concluded that the child misperceived what occurred while Coates was fondling her genital area. The jury could reasonably reconcile the contradictions in the evidence and find beyond a reasonable doubt that Coates had sexual contact with the victim. The victim's testimony on the essential elements of the crime charged was not incredible as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial