Opinion ID: 1868089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: ¶ 19 Although it was entered into evidence, the video was not shown to the jury. Booker argues that this omission is dispositive because there is no satisfactory substitute for having the jury view the video when it is deciding whether it is harmful material that is harmful to children. He contends that the jury could not determine whether the video is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for children and whether the video lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children, when taken as a whole without actually viewing the parts of the video that allegedly constitute the harmful material. He argues that descriptions of isolated images and sexual acts from the video are not sufficient to prove the three factors necessary to make the required finding under Wis. Stat. § 948.11. ¶ 20 In contrast, the State argues that the plain language of the statute does not require that the State prove those factors with direct evidence, i.e., by actually showing the video to the jury. It also contends that, as this court discussed in Thiel, see id. at 535, 515 N.W.2d 847, [7] Wis. Stat. § 948.11 focuses on the nature of the materials, which need not be ascertained through direct viewing by the fact-finder, but may also be ascertained from others' descriptions of the materials. ¶ 21 The State also asserts that the harmful material element of Wis. Stat. § 948.11, i.e., that the material has no literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children and that the material is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for children, can be met by the evidence in this case. It contends that the jury is the appropriate evaluator of whether that element was proved by the evidence presented. Therefore, no expert analysis as to community standards was necessary to prove the material patently offensive. Finally, the State emphasizes that Booker fast-forwarded through portions of the video to show the girls the scenes depicting fellatio and other sexual acts; therefore, the material to which the girls were exposed was selected specifically for its obscene and inappropriate content. Accordingly, although the testifying detective offered a description of the entire video, the only evidence necessary to sustain a guilty verdict is testimony about the portions of the video actually shown to the girls.
¶ 22 Evidence is insufficient to support a conviction only if the evidence, when viewed most favorably to the State, is so insufficient in probative value and force that it can be said as a matter of law that no trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d at 501, 451 N.W.2d 752. As the court of appeals recently noted in State v. Searcy, 2006 WI App 8, 288 Wis.2d 804, 709 N.W.2d 497, the defendant bears a heavy burden in attempting to convince a reviewing court to set aside a jury's verdict on insufficiency of the evidence grounds. Id., ¶ 22 (citing State v. Allbaugh, 148 Wis.2d 807, 808-09, 436 N.W.2d 898 (Ct.App.1989)). ¶ 23 In Booker's trial, the girls' and the detective's testimonies regarding the content of the tape were admitted to prove the harmful material element of Wis. Stat. § 948.11. All of the witnesses explained that the video's dominant focus was on nudity and explicit sexual acts and suggested that the video had no additional plot line, meaningful dialogue or other notable qualities or characteristics. The girls characterized it as a porno video. Their descriptions of what they saw provided the jury with explicit details of the contents of the video that the jury could use to assess the film's appeal to children's prurient interests, its offensiveness to community standards about what is appropriate for children and its lack of other value for 12- to 14-year-olds. The jury was able to make its own decision as to the credibility of the witnesses. Poellinger, 153 Wis.2d at 506, 451 N.W.2d 752. ¶ 24 The United States Supreme Court, federal courts, and Wisconsin courts are uniform in concluding that questions of whether material appeals to prurient interests, satisfies community standards for potentially obscene material or has literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value may be appropriately decided by a jury. See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 56, 93 S.Ct. 2628, 37 L.Ed.2d 446 (1973) (holding in an obscenity case, it was not error to fail to require `expert' affirmative evidence that the materials were obscene); see also United States v. Wild, 422 F.2d 34 (2d Cir.1969) (holding that issues of prurient appeal and offensiveness to contemporary community standards were appropriately decided by a jury, notwithstanding the lack of expert testimony); State v. Tee & Bee, Inc., 229 Wis.2d 446, 452, 600 N.W.2d 230 (Ct.App. 1999) (citing Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 305, 97 S.Ct. 1756, 52 L.Ed.2d 324 (1977)) (holding in an obscenity case that contemporary community standards [can] be applied by juries in accordance with their own understanding of the tolerance of the average person in their community. ¶ 25 When we view the evidence in this case most favorably to the State, we conclude that a reasonable trier of fact, acting reasonably, could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony presented. First, the jury could conclude that the video excerpts, as described, predominantly appeal to the prurient interests of children. Prurient is defined as arousing inordinate or unusual sexual desire. Black's Law Dictionary 1263 (8th ed.2004). The portions of the video that Booker showed to the girls were consistently described as scene upon scene of sexual acts, with all scenes ending with the male masturbating to the point of ejaculation on the female. ¶ 26 Second, the jury could conclude that the video is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with regard to what is suitable for children. Motion pictures that depict explicit sexual material harmful to minors may not be shown at outdoor theaters if the screen is visible from a public street, sidewalk, thoroughfare or other public place or from private property where it can be observed by minors. Wis. Stat. § 134.46(2). Videos with the type of content described by the witnesses are not available for rental to minor children in Wisconsin. Videos showing explicit sexual acts are commonly rated and restricted so that minor children will not be exposed to them. [8] A jury could make a reasonable determination based on the testimony presented at trial that the video Booker showed the girls is considered by Wisconsin adults as unsuitable for children. ¶ 27 Third, the jury could conclude that the video excerpts lacked serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for 12- to 14-year-olds because nothing was shown except episodes with men and women engaging in sexual acts. There was no evidence that the video had merit for children of these ages, for any reason. And, for the same reasons that the other parts of the harmful material element can be met by the evidence presented, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the testimony that the video was absolutely void of serious literary, artistic, political, scientific or educational value for children. ¶ 28 The parties also discuss State v. Trochinski, 2002 WI 56, 253 Wis.2d 38, 644 N.W.2d 891, but they disagree as to its relevance to the issues presented in this case. Trochinski centered on a defendant's no contest plea to one count of exposing a minor to harmful materials in violation of Wis. Stat. § 948.11(2). Id., ¶ 1. After sentencing, Trochinski filed a postconviction motion seeking to withdraw his plea. Id. He alleged that when he pled, he did not understand the harmful to children element of the offense. Id. He said that his trial counsel did not advise him that the State would have to prove that the photographs he gave to the 17-year-old girl [9] were patently offensive to prevailing community standards regarding what is suitable for a child of like age and that the material lacked serious value when taken as a whole, for a child of like age. Id., ¶ 18. He argued that because he did not understand how `harmful to children' would be judged by the jury with respect [to the girl to whom he gave the pictures], he did not understand the meaning of that element when he entered his plea. Id. ¶ 29 We concluded that Trochinski had not established prima facie proof that his plea was involuntary or unknowing. Id., ¶ 23. The record revealed that Trochinski gave a minor nude photos of himself, an alleged letter from Playgirl magazine, and a letter to the minor asking her to review his nude photos. We concluded that the circuit court did not err in concluding this constituted a sufficient factual basis to support Trochinski's plea. Id., ¶ 32. ¶ 30 We conclude that the procedural posture of Trochinski causes it to have little relevance. We upheld the defendant's plea in Trochinski. Trochinski's plea waived the right to have a jury determine whether showing the pictures to a child violated Wis. Stat. § 948.11. Therefore, our discussion in Trochinski focused on his knowing and voluntary waiver. Furthermore, although both cases involve the application of § 948.11, Trochinski involved a plea, a child of a different age and a few still-life photos, rather than a jury verdict, 12- to 14-year-old children and a video showing actual fellatio, sexual intercourse, masturbation to the point of ejaculation, and sexual fondling of various types. ¶ 31 Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence submitted to the jury was such that a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Booker violated Wis. Stat. § 948.11. [10]