State v. Coughlin
| Decision Date | 21 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2019AP1876-CR |
| Citation | 402 Wis.2d 107,975 N.W.2d 179,2022 WI 43 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-Petitioner, v. Donald P. COUGHLIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the plaintiff-respondent-petitioner, there were briefs filed by Winn S. Collins, assistant attorney general, with whom on the briefs was Joshua L. Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Winn S. Collins.
For the defendant-appellant, there was a brief filed by Phillip J. Brehm and Phillip J. Brehm Attorney at Law, Janesville. There was an oral argument by Phillip J. Brehm.
¶1 The State of Wisconsin seeks review of the court of appeals’ unpublished decision, which reversed Donald Coughlin's convictions on 15 counts of sexual assault. Specifically, those counts consisted of 14 counts of first-degree and second-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of repeated sexual assault of a child.1
¶2 Arguing that the convictions should be reinstated, the State advances that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Coughlin guilty on all 15 counts at issue. It also asks this court to hold that the jury instructions control in an evidence-sufficiency claim when there is a discrepancy between the jury instructions and the verdict form.
¶3 In response, Coughlin contends that because the State did not ask questions particular to the charged time periods, there was no evidence upon which the jury could have convicted him on these 15 counts. For purposes of this case only, he also acknowledges that the jury instructions should guide this court's review.
¶4 Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the sufficiency of the evidence should be evaluated according to the jury instructions. Further, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Coughlin guilty on all 15 counts at issue. Coughlin failed to overcome his heavy burden to show that no reasonable jury could have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty.
¶5 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
¶6 In 2009, three individuals came forward as adults, alleging that Coughlin repeatedly sexually abused them over the course of their childhoods.
Throughout the opinion, we refer to these individuals as Coughlin's older stepson, younger stepson, and nephew.
¶7 Initially, the State charged Coughlin with one count of repeated sexual assault of a child2 and 21 counts of first-degree3 and second-degree4 sexual assault of a child for alleged conduct that involved his nephew and two stepsons. The six counts involving his older stepson were affirmed by the court of appeals, and Coughlin does not contest his convictions on those counts. Thus, they are not at issue here.
¶8 The initial complaint also charged Coughlin with child enticement5 involving a fourth alleged victim. This count involving the fourth individual is likewise not before us. The jury found Coughlin not guilty on that charge.6
¶9 Each count was tied to a separate, specified time period.7 The charged time periods involving the nephew encompassed primarily the autumn seasons of 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.8 Pertaining to the younger stepson, the charged time periods involved primarily each spring from 1990 through 1994 and each autumn from 1989 through 1994.9 The periods were delineated in this fashion for the younger stepson because during the school year he lived with his mother, siblings, and Coughlin but spent summers with his uncle, at which time he would not have had as much interaction with Coughlin.
¶10 At trial, the nephew and stepsons described an environment of near constant physical and sexual abuse at the hands of Coughlin. They also described Coughlin making threats that discouraged them from reporting the abuse. Such threats included Coughlin threatening to kill them or their mother, and Coughlin stating that no one would believe the boys if they came forward.
¶11 According to the nephew's and stepsons’ testimony, the abuse occurred either when one of them was alone with Coughlin or when all or some combination of the three boys were alone with Coughlin. The locations of the abuse included Coughlin's truck when the boys went deer shining with him in autumn, at the village firehouse where Coughlin was fire chief, and at the family home where the stepsons lived with Coughlin. The nephew lived nearby and often spent time at Coughlin's home with the stepsons.
¶12 Specifically, the nephew testified that he started sixth grade in 1988 at 11 years old and that the sexual abuse started when he was in sixth grade. The first incident involved Coughlin measuring his penis when they were at the firehouse. The nephew explained that the sexual abuse continued the same year as the first incident when he would go deer shining with Coughlin and his cousins (the stepsons). He said that they went deer shining "quite a bit," further stating that it "[c]ould be four times a month, could be once a month, depending on the month." He confirmed that deer shining happened "more than once a month during the late summer and fall." The nephew's testimony also illustrated the pervasiveness of the abuse: "[T]here was so many incidents of stuff that -- to say one time for one thing is pretty hard to remember." He testified that the abuse continued until he finished high school, and confirmed that it happened at least once in the autumn months of 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.
¶13 The younger stepson likewise testified that Coughlin started sexually abusing him in 1985 when he was seven years old. He explained that Coughlin abused him when he took the boys deer shining, which occurred "twice a week" in the autumn of each year. Additionally, he testified that the abuse would also occur at the home where he and the older stepson lived at the time with their mother, Coughlin, and two sisters. When asked how often the abuse would occur in the home, the younger stepson responded, "Weekly." The younger stepson testified that in the autumn of 1989, some sort of sexual activity "[d]efinitely" occurred and that they would go deer shining with Coughlin one to two times a week at a minimum.
¶14 With regard to the spring of 1990, the younger stepson testified that some type of sexual activity happened "[a]t least once a week." In response to questioning, he also confirmed that some type of sexual activity occurred at least once in the autumn of 1990, spring of 1991, autumn of 1991, spring of 1992, autumn of 1992, spring of 1993, autumn of 1993, and spring of 1994. He further confirmed that Coughlin asked him to engage in sexual activity on at least three occasions in the autumn of 1994.
¶15 Even though Coughlin does not challenge his convictions as to the six counts involving the older stepson, the testimony regarding those convictions also displayed the pervasiveness of the abuse experienced by all three children. The older stepson explained that "going hunting, going shining deer, going to cut wood, going to play at the firehouse, those types of things where we'd be alone with him would lead up to it almost every time." He testified that they would be "out shining deer nonstop" in autumn, which was an occasion when the abuse would occur "without fail." The older stepson said that Coughlin would "pull his penis out of his pants and begin stroking it, and asking one of us to or ask us to join in, either masturbating ourselves or masturbate him." The older stepson explained that at the firehouse, Coughlin would abuse them "[b]asically every time [they] were alone with him."
¶16 Throughout trial, the nephew and stepsons often used the term "masturbate" to describe the following scenarios: when they would "masturbate" themselves at Coughlin's direction, when Coughlin would "masturbate" himself in their presence, when Coughlin would "masturbate" the boys, and when the boys would "masturbate" Coughlin at Coughlin's direction. The State would often refer to all four types of conduct as "sexual activity." It also referenced both Coughlin touching the boys’ penises and Coughlin causing the boys to touch his penis in its closing argument.
¶17 In his trial testimony, Coughlin denied that he ever abused his nephew or two stepsons or that he ever masturbated in their presence or instructed them to masturbate. He said that he never molested them on their deer shining trips, in the home, or at other locations.
¶18 At the close of evidence, the circuit court instructed the jury and also read each verdict form to the jury. As relevant here, the definition of "sexual contact" in the jury instructions differed from the definition in the verdict form. The jury instructions defined "sexual contact" as "an intentional touching of the penis" of the nephew and stepsons by Coughlin or "an intentional touching by the victim" of Coughlin's penis "if the defendant intentionally caused or allowed the victim to do that touching." For there to have been sexual contact, the defendant must have acted with the intent to become sexually aroused or gratified.
¶19 By contrast, the verdict form defined "sexual contact" as only "the defendant touching the victim's penis" and did not include Coughlin intentionally causing them to touch his penis. "Sexual contact," in either definition, did not include instances when the nephew and stepsons masturbated themselves at Coughlin's direction or when Coughlin masturbated himself in the presence of the boys.
¶20 The jury found Coughlin guilty of the counts involving the nephew and stepsons and acquitted him of the child enticement charge involving another individual. Coughlin filed a postconviction motion, asking the circuit court to dismiss all counts on the grounds that there was an insufficient factual basis to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sauk Cnty. v. S.A.M. (In re S.A.M.)
-
State v. Coughlin
...2022 WI 43 State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent-petitioner, v. Donald P . Coughlin, Defendant-Appellant. No. 2019AP1876-CRSupreme Court of WisconsinJune 21, ORAL ARGUMENT: March 1, 2022 REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS Reported at 397 Wis.2d 242, 959 N.W.2d 82 (2021 - unpublis......
-
State v. Bruss
...determination and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including reasonable inferences from that evidence. State v. Coughlin, 2022 WI 43, ¶24, 402 Wis.2d 107, 975 N.W.2d 179. A defendant the heavy burden of showing that the totality of the evidence could not have reas......