|
STATE
OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
III |
|
|
|
State
of Wisconsin,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Roy
Malvitz,
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|||
ERRATA SHEET
Marilyn L. Graves
Clerk of Court of Appeals
P.O. Box 1688
Madison, WI 53701-1688
Court of Appeals District I
633 W. Wisconsin Ave., #1400
Milwaukee, WI 53203-1918
Court of Appeals District III
740 Third Street
Wausau, WI 54403-5784
Jennifer Krapf
Administrative Assistant
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Peg Carlson
Chief Staff Attorney
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Court of Appeals District II
2727 N. Grandview Blvd.
Waukesha, WI 53188-1672
Court of Appeals District IV
119 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Madison, WI 53703
Hon. John D. McKay
Trial Court Judge
100 S. Jefferson
Brown County Courthouse
Green Bay, WI 54301
Lynn Verheyen, Trial Court Clerk
100 S. Jefferson
Brown County Courthouse
Green Bay, WI 54301
(L. C. # 95-CF-33)
Gerald P. Boyle
Boyle, Boyle & Smith, S.C.
1124 West Wells Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
William C. Wolford
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707
Mary E. Burke
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
Dana J. Johnson
Asst. District Attorney
P.O. Box 23600
Green Bay, WI 54305
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the attached page 10 is to be substituted for page 10 in the above-captioned opinion which was released on November 4, 1997.
Dated this 13th day of November, 1997.
indicating that the girl was not inappropriately dressed, was walking casually to her home, and did not appear to be in distress.
Direct evidence of a defendant’s intent is frequently a matter to be determined from circumstantial evidence. In this case, Malvitz concedes that he approached the young girl in question twice, that he paused at an intersection for several minutes, and that he asked her if she wished to take a ride in his car. Although he claimed that his intent was innocent and that he paused at the intersection only to refill his coffee cup, the jury was not required to accept his explanation. Malvitz’s behavior, which so concerned the postal carrier that he decided to follow him, and the fact that Malvitz’s testimony about the girl’s apparent distress was inconsistent with other testimony, are sufficient to permit a finding that his actions were intended for some type of sexual gratification. Therefore, we reject Malvitz’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
By the Court.—Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports.