State v. Fischer
| Decision Date | 17 May 1938 |
| Citation | 228 Wis. 131,279 N.W. 661 |
| Parties | STATE v. FISCHER. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of Langlade County; A. N. Whiting, Judge.
Peter Fischer was convicted of statutory rape, and he appeals.-[By Editorial Staff.]
Affirmed.
The defendant-appellant brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence, for the crime of statutory rape, entered June 10, 1937. The information charged the defendant, under section 340.47, Statutes, with having committed the crime of rape on or about the 1st day of February, 1936, upon one Marie Conn, a female child under the age of eighteen years, to wit, fifteen years, said defendant being then and there a male person over the age of eighteen years. Case was tried to the court and jury. Whereupon, the jury, after many hours of deliberation, returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the offense charged in the information. After verdict, defendant moved that the charge against him be dismissed and he be released from further custody:
(1) Because the evidence fails to prove an offense has been committed as and when charged.
(2) Because the evidence is such that the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses for the plaintiff, particularly that of the complaining witness, has been impeached and is involved in so much doubt that the verdict of the jury should be set aside.
(3) Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to the uncontradicted testimony and was influenced by passion, prejudice and perverseness.
(4) Because it is probable that justice has miscarried.
Also moved, in the alternative, for a new trial upon the following grounds:
(1) Because the court erred in admitting evidence against the objection of the defendant.
(2) Because the court erred in refusing to receive evidence offered by the defendant.
(3) Because the court erred in instructing the jury.
(4) Because the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as requested by the defendant in writing.
(5) Because the verdict of the jury is contrary to the uncontradicted evidence.
(6) Because the verdict of the jury is the result of and was actuated by passion, prejudice and perverseness.
(7) Because the interests of justice require a new trial.
The court denied the motions and thereupon sentenced the defendant to the Wisconsin State Prison at Waupun for a term of five years.
Rufus K. Breihan, of Antigo, for appellant.
Orland S. Loomis, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Thomas E. McDougal, Dist. Atty., of Antigo, for the State.
The appellant makes three assignments of error:
(1) The court erred in refusing to receive evidence offered by the defendant.
(2) The court erred in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.
(3) The court erred in denying defendant's motions after verdict to have the verdict of the jury set aside and for a judgment of acquittal, or a new trial.
Under these assignments, the appellant argues all the contentions urged in the trial court and as indicated in his motions after verdict with the exception that no contention is made here that the court erred in instructing the jury, or in refusing to instruct as requested. Nevertheless, we have carefully examined the charge to the jury and find no error therein. This case having been tried once before, resulting in a disagreement, we have given particular attention to the testimony of the complaining witness, Marie Conn, given at the preliminary hearing and upon the trial, to ascertain if there were any material discrepancies in her testimony, and we find none.
[1][2] We do not regard it necessary or serviceable to make any detailed statement of the facts in connection with the repulsive crime of which defendant stands convicted. It is the settled rule in this state that if there is any credible evidence, which in any reasonable view supports a verdict in a criminal case, it cannot be disturbed on appeal. State v. Hintz, 200 Wis. 636, at page 640, 229 N.W. 54;LamYee v. State, 132 Wis. 527, 112 N.W. 425;Van Haltren v. State, 142 Wis. 143, 124 N.W. 1039;Clemens v. State, 176 Wis. 289, 185 N.W. 209, 21 A.L.R. 1490;O'Keefe v. State, 177 Wis. 64, 187 N.W. 656;Imperio v. State, 153 Wis. 455, 459, 141 N.W. 241;State v. Fricke, 215 Wis. 661, at page 667, 255 N.W. 724. It is also the established rule that the testimony of the outraged female, especially when supported by circumstances such as we have here, constitutes a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gauthier v. State
...this is again a matter of credibility to be determined by the trial judge when he is acting as the fact finder. State v. Fischer (1938), 228 Wis. 131, 135, 279 N.W. 661, 662. An act of intercourse seldom takes place before the eyes of witnesses. Hence, it is rare that there is any corrobora......
-
State v. Crabtree
...evidence, which in any reasonable view supports a verdict in a criminal case, it cannot be disturbed on appeal. State v. Fischer, 228 Wis. 131, 134, 279 N.W. 661, and cases cited. In connection with defendant's motion for a new trial on the grounds indicated therefor and to which reference ......
-
Matter of Dingena
...N.W. 2d 101, 28 Wis. 2d 412. 4. Lanphere v. State, 114 Wis. 193, 89 N.W. 128; Haley v. State, 207 Wis. 193, 240 N.W. 829; State v. Fischer, 228 Wis. 131, 279 N.W. 661; State v. Fries, 246 Wis. 521, 17 N.S. 2d 578; State v. Pickett, 259 Wis. 593, 49 N.W. 2d 5. 75 C.J.S., sec. 13, pp. 478, 47......
-
State v. Fries
...injured party is sufficient to sustain a conviction of rape. Lamphere v. State, 1902, 114 Wis. 193, 202, 89 N.W. 128;State v. Fischer, 1938, 228 Wis. 131, 134, 279 N.W. 661;State v. Crabtree, 1941, 237 Wis. 16, 21, 22, 296 N.W. 79. Here, there was testimony of other witnesses that defendant......