Court Opinion

ID: 9659048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:30:28.496989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:03.362456
License: Public Domain

Gordon, J.
(concurring). I concur with the court’s holding. I also join in the court’s opinion except insofar as it attempts to distinguish Oakley v. State (1964), 22 *304Wis. (2d) 298, 125 N. W. (2d) 657. Both in that case and in the case at bar there were aggressive and offensive acts which unmistakably evidenced an intent to rape — or, at the very least, acts which a jury was entitled to find showed such intent. '
In Oakley, this court labeled the defendant’s conduct as “gross, obscene, and highly reprehensible.” (p. 809.) I am unable to accept the majority’s effort to treat Mr. Oakley’s atrocious actions as distinguishable from those of Mr. Le Barron. By trick, Mr. Oakley succeeded in entering the auto of a total stranger and drove her to a secluded place. Against her wishes and in spite of her tears he detained her for an hour. The prosecutrix, who weighed a mere 107 pounds, testified at the trial in that case that she was unable to get out of the car; however, she resisted him in all his advances. Mr. Oakley persisted in his demand for sexual intercourse with her even after he physically verified her assertion that she was menstruating at the time. He exposed his penis. His other nefarious conduct is fully outlined at pages 301-303 of this court’s decision.
The majority opinion in the case at bar points out that Mr. Oakley finally desisted from his attempt to have sexual intercourse with his victim. His ultimate failure “to renew this endeavor” cannot properly be construed to relieve him of the onus of his prior criminal conduct, nor should it now be utilized by the court to distinguish his intentions from those of Mr. Le Barron’s; as Mr. Justice Hallows well stated in a dissent to the Oakley Case, at page 311:
“[T]hat the prosecutrix was successful in dissuading the defendant is not to his credit but to hers.”
In my view, the instant case only serves to demonstrate rather dramatically how erroneous was the holding in Oakley.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Hallows joins in this concurring opinion.