COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED October 20, 2009
David
R. Schanker Clerk of Court of Appeals |
|
NOTICE |
|
|
This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62. |
|
Appeal No. |
|
|||
STATE OF WISCONSIN |
IN COURT OF APPEALS |
|||
|
DISTRICT III |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
State of
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Daniel R. Bero,
Defendant-Appellant. |
||||
|
|
|||
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for
Before
¶1 PER CURIAM. Daniel Bero appeals a judgment convicting him of two counts of exposing children to harmful material. He argues the State presented insufficient evidence to establish that he exhibited the materials to the children because he did not offer the magazines to them, but merely acquiesced in their viewing of the pornography. We reject that argument and affirm the judgment.
¶2 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, this court must view the evidence most favorably to the State and
conviction, and affirm the verdicts unless the evidence is so lacking in
probative value and force that no trier of fact could reasonably find guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. State
v. Poellinger, 153
¶3 The girls testified they went to Bero’s apartment to get some matches. They went into Bero’s bedroom to look for pornographic magazines that one of the girls new about. Bero followed them into the bedroom and told them to go away. Nonetheless, when the girls found the magazines on the bedroom floor, Bero did not tell them to stop looking at the magazines, and instead laid on the bed and fondled himself as he watched them peruse the magazines for ten minutes. One of the girls testified that Bero asked her to be his girlfriend.
¶4 In State v. Thiel, 183
¶5 Bero contends his acquiescence allowing the girls to look through pornographic magazines does not meet that definition. We disagree. To exhibit material does not require handing the material to the minors or asking them to view it. Bero’s reaction to the girls’ viewing his magazines constituted tacit approval of their looking at his magazines and exploitation of their curiosity. His actions represented a knowing and affirmative act of promoting their inspection of the magazines.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(1)(b)5. (2007-08).