Opinion ID: 1202601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: intent, muscular contraction and number of victims

Text: The defendant's intent, as evidenced by his conduct and utterances, to sexually abuse or obtain sexual gratification from his victim may demonstrate his desire for differing and separate means or acts of abuse or gratification. Harrell, 88 Wis.2d at 574, 277 N.W.2d at 473. Obviously the passing of time between events may be an indication of intent; the moving of a victim and renewal of an assault may also indicate intent. Furthermore, a defendant by his statements or separate concentration (e.g., starting his contact on the breasts and after a time shifting focus to the sex organ) may show that he intends to commit multiple offenses. This is why the multiple penetration cases are treated differently from battery cases: each penetration is prima facie evidence of a new intent to invade the victim's body. See Carter, supra ; Fortner, supra . Another way of viewing the multiple penetration distinction from battery is on the muscular contraction principle: If a defendant consciously chooses to commit a separate act (e.g., pulling the trigger on a gun twice) he must have intended to commit two acts. In penetration cases, the fact that a defendant consciously moved his sex organ to insert it into a second or third orifice is further evidence of intent to commit two crimes. [9] However, the appellant did not separately attack different parts of Ms. D.'s body; he did not express any intent separately to abuse various parts of Ms. D.'s body; rather, he committed one few second grope that simultaneously made contact with the victim's breasts and sex organ. Although the appellant intended to cause sexual contact with the victim, he did not intend to cause multiple contacts. This lack of intent makes the appellant's dual convictions for sexual abuse violate his constitutional protections against double jeopardy. 4.