Court Opinion

ID: 9542245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:32:20.969839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:17.092496
License: Public Domain

Hallows, C. J.
(dissenting). I think there is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for attempted aggravated battery. The trial court apparently was of the opinion that if the assault had continued without interruption Reinhold Kopp would have been seriously injured and, applying the rule that a person intends the natural consequences of his acts, Willis would have had sufficient *171intention to commit the crime of aggravated battery. To me, this is pure speculation and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is required in criminal cases. There is no evidence of any animosity between Willis and Kopp, or for that matter any reason why Willis should strike Kopp. The majority view will make every simple battery which is interrupted a crime of attempted aggravated battery.
Aggravated battery requires an intent to cause “great bodily harm,” which is defined in sec. 939.22 (14), Stats., as bodily injury which creates “a high probability of death” or which causes “serious permanent disfigurement ... a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.” The type of injury required is illustrated in Irby v. State (1971), 49 Wis. 2d 612, 182 N. W. 2d 251, wherein the victim was stabbed in the stomach, cut in the face, inflicted with four lacerations on his right arm, taken to a hospital in an apparent unconscious condition where he remained one week, spending the first two and one-half days in intensive care because of a collapsed lung and because of the degree of bleeding caused by the severance of an intercostal artery or vein in the lower chest region, all of which resulted in a total loss of approximately one quart of blood. That no such serious injury was involved in the instant case is apparent.
In our previous cases dealing with aggravated battery, which first found its way into our law in 1955 as a part of the criminal code, the intent to do great bodily harm was inferred from the end result together with the presumption that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. State v. Gould (1973), 56 Wis. 2d 808, 202 N. W. 2d 903; State v. Bronston (1959), 7 Wis. 2d 627, 97 N. W. 2d 504, rehearing denied, 98 N. W. 2d 468. In attempted aggravated battery, on the other hand, where there was no end result of great bodily harm, a *172finding of intent to cause such harm was based upon the potentiality of the offender’s act and other facts. Thus, in Bronston, the requisite intent for attempted aggravated battery could be inferred from the fact that the blow therein struck might easily have caused a fractured skull, as the complaining witness was struck on the back of her head with a ratchet-type wrench wielded by the assailant, who was attempting a robbery. In Dunn v. State (1972), 55 Wis 2d 192, 197 N. W. 2d 749, we considered the evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction of attempted aggravated battery where the defendant, in a fracas with his victim, struck the latter on the head with a hammer and kicked him in the face. There was also some evidence of animosity. In the instant case, there was no instrumentality, such as a hammer or wrench, which would have the potentiality of causing great bodily harm and which would indicate that Willis had the necessary intent to accomplish an aggravated battery and no motive was shown for the battery.
In relying upon State v. Wells (1971), 51 Wis. 2d 477, 187 N. W. 2d 328, for the drawing of somewhat irrelevant analogies, the majority opinion ignores the primary distinction between that case and this one. In Wells, a completed crime rather than an attempt was involved. The majority there drew upon a presumption that one who takes the life of another by the infliction of a wound naturally calculated to cause death in fact intends death as the result. In the instant case, the majority takes this rationale one step further by assuming the result and from that assuming an intent to cause the result assumed. This I cannot do under the rule that a defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would accordingly reverse on this issue.
I am authorized to state Messrs. Justices Wilkie and Heffernan join in this dissent.