Opinion ID: 1816335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: 177 Was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Text: Much of the testimony has been detailed in the statement of facts and evidence discussed in regard to the identification and lineup questions. We are satisfied that the evidence adduced in this trial, believed, and rationally considered by the jury was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The public defender, however, attempts to cast doubt upon the identification testimony of the victim, because Attorney Robert Beaudry testified that, as he was entering the courtroom just prior to the preliminary hearing, he overheard the victim and Police Detective Thelen talking. Beaudry testified: ... she wasn't sure that it was him and he said `Well, today is the day that you better make up your mindit's either one way or the other.' And she said `I'm not sure.' While a conversation between Thelen and the victim was admitted, the police officer's version was different. He stated that in the conversation the victim said, `I would never forget that face.' Both of these points of view were put before the jury. It is evident that they chose not to place great weight on the impeaching statements reported by Attorney Beaudry. The question is one of credibility of witnesses, and it is apparent that the jury considered the Beaudry testimony insufficient to undermine the credence to be placed in the victim's testimony. State v. Stevens (1965), 26 Wis. 2d 451, 132 N. W. 2d 502. The public defender also presents the bizarre argument that the rape was not forcible, in that she did not physically resist and during intercourse uttered equivocal sounds, which the public defender contends  were arguably sounds of venereal pleasure. Sec. 944.01 (2), Stats., defines by force and against her will as meaning either that her utmost resistance is overcome or prevented by physical violence or that her will to resist is overcome by threats of imminent physical violence likely to cause great bodily harm. The victim testified that the assailant had a gun in his hand and, at the time he engaged in sexual intercourse, the gun was sticking in her side. She stated that she submitted to him out of fear because she was afraid he might kill her. In State v. Hoffman (1938), 228 Wis. 235, 240, 280 N. W. 357, we said: It therefore clearly appears that `the fear' which renders the utmost resistance unnecessary is a `fear of death or great bodily harm,' a `fear of great personal injury,' or `serious personal injury,' a fear that `so overpowers her that she dares not resist,' a `fear and terror so extreme as to preclude resistance,' a fear which renders her mind `well nigh incapable of continuing her resistance to repel him.' The fear therefore must not only be real but so great as to terrify her and render her practically incapable of resistance. The fear caused by an assailant brandishing a gun in an alley and thrusting it against the victim's ribs meets this test beyond a reasonable doubt.